The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Mark Suennen and Peter Hogan, and Ex-officio Christine Quirk. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Shannon Silver and Recording Clerk Valerie Diaz.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Dave Elliott, Skip Gomes, Sue Frost, Craig Heafield, Bo Strong, Warren Houghton, Willard Dodge, Jay Marden, Kris Stewart, Steve Elliott, Ed Colburn, Dwight Lovejoy, Rick Kohler and Gary Perkowski.
Public Input Session re: Earth Removal Regulations
Present in the audience were Dave Elliott, Skip Gomes, Sue Frost, Craig Heafield, Bo Strong, Warren Houghton, Willard Dodge, Jay Marden, Kris Stewart, Steve Elliott, Ed Colburn, and Dwight Lovejoy. The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He noted that copies of the Earth Removal Regulations had been previously provided to the interested parties/gravel pit owners. He asked the audience for comments.
Dave Elliott of 39 Tucker Mill Road stated that he had read the Earth Removal Regulations; however, he had not had an opportunity to review the regulations with his attorney for further explanation.
The Chairman stated that the fact sheet at the beginning of the document provided an explanation that due to changes in state law the Selectmen were no longer the Regulators of the Earth Removal Regulations; the Planning Board was now the Regulator of Earth Removal Regulations. He explained that the regulations were created using a model ordinance as well as comments from the Planning Board. He stated that purpose of this meeting was to allow those who would be affected by the regulations to provide their input on its contents. He noted that Dave Elliott’s comment regarding the need for attorney review was well taken. He stated that public hearing would be scheduled at a future time relative to the adoption of the regulations. He indicated that this was the first chance for the public
to voice any concerns regarding potential problems, questions, or amendments prior to the adoption of the regulations. He asked if the Board had any comments to add. Christine Quirk commented that the Board was following how these regulations had been handled in the past and continued that not many changes had been made.
The Chairman asked for questions or comments from the audience. Skip Gomes of 41 Misty Meadow Lane asked if the Board would make the final decision on the regulations to be adopted. The Chairman explained that the Board would make a vote after receiving public input on the adoption of the regulations. He added that this process was consistent with all the regulations overseen by the Planning Board.
Dave Elliott stated that he had a lot of concerns with the regulations. He asked if his understanding was accurate that an exemption needed to be requested prior to the construction of any road in New Boston. The Coordinator answered that an exemption was only necessary if a new excavation was to be done solely for the purpose of constructing a Class I through VI highway. She added that the exemption would be for the new gravel pit. Dave Elliott commented that road excavation had not been considered to be a gravel pit in the past and as such did not require any permitting to move dirt from different locations on the property. The Coordinator asked for clarification if Dave Elliott was referring to the section pertaining to incidental to construction or a gravel pit started for a road.
Dave Elliott answered that he was referring to the section on incidental to construction and not a gravel operation of any kind. He added that the regulations had been too complicated to digest in the short amount of time he had been given between time of receipt and this input session. He stated that his next step would be to speak with an attorney for explanation. He went on to give an example of being hired to build a road that would not include a gravel operation. He stated that the construction of the road could require that thirty yards of ledge be blasted, crushed, and separated into different materials to be used on the project. He asked if it was now required that he request an exemption from the Board for the aforementioned road construction that would also include a public hearing and notice to abutters. The Coordinator answered that an exemption was only necessary if the material from the project was to be removed from the
property. Dave Elliott referred to a project completed by Tris Construction, wherein, material was moved onsite from one location of the property to the house site. He asked if the regulations required that quantities of material be estimated and brought before the Board. The Coordinator answered that if material needed to be removed from the property because there was too much to use for the project then the issue would fall under the incidental to construction category. She explained that the Board could make specific requirements to this regard for the subdivision. She noted that Tris Construction was not an appropriate example because it was an existing gravel pit that was using material for the lots. Dave Elliott asked for clarification that all onsite material movement did not require an exemption from the Board. The Coordinator and Christine Quirk confirmed Dave Elliott’s statement.
Sue Frost of 367 Dustin Tavern Road, Weare, reiterated Dave Elliott’s opinion that the regulations contained a lot of information to digest within the small amount of time that had been given from receipt of the document to the time of this meeting. The Chairman stated that there would be another public session scheduled where additional input could be provided. Sue Frost asked if the Board could highlight the changes that had been to the regulations. The Coordinator stated that the Town of New Boston had a gravel removal regulation established in 1973. She continued that in 1979 the State created new law with regard to gravel removal and subsequently made additional changes in 1989. She indicated that since 1989 the Town had been in limbo because the regulation of 1973 was still
effective and as such the Selectmen continued to be the Regulator even though State law required the Planning Board to be the Regulator. She noted that in order to be in compliance with State law changes were made to the Regulations. She stated that the Earth Removal Regulations as presented this evening were the Board’s best effort at combining the previous practices of the Selectmen, State law requirements, and items that the Town wished to do and placing them into one document. Christine Quirk noted that the Planning Board was trying to continue the same practices of the Selectmen.
Skip Gomes asked for an explanation of exemptions with regard to grandfathered gravel pits. The Coordinator explained that town permits were not required if the applicant/owner met all the criteria listed in the regulations. She noted that one of the requirements was that a report be filed during a certain year and that to her knowledge only one gravel pit owner in Town had met that requirement. She went on to say that if an owner was to qualify for the exemption they would still be required to meet the operating and reclamation standards that were listed in the statute. She pointed out that if an owner did not meet the requirements for the exemption a permit would need to be applied for through the Planning Board. Skip Gomes asked if the gravel pit owners needed to file for an exemption. The
Coordinator answered that the gravel pit owners would continue to file for a permit unless they met all the criteria in the exemption section of the regulations.
Craig Heafield of 688 River Road stated that he had records of his permits dating back to 1975 to the present. He pointed out that the 1989 or 1990 permit had an exemption on it that stated the Selectmen could waive a plan if there was less than 10,000 yards of material removed in a year. He indicated that the Selectmen had waived his plan and therefore he did not have a record of the plan. He asked if he would qualify for the exemption without the plan. The Coordinator answered that the Board would need to review the issue and compare to the 1973 ordinance as well as permits; she invited any of the pit owners to request that the Board review such information.
Craig Heafield commented that it seemed that the pit owners who have held legal permits in the past were now being required to go through the permitting process as if they had never held the permits. The Coordinator stated that most pit owners would find that filing for the AOT permit would meet a lot of the requirements that are contained in the regulations. She continued that the permits that had been supplied in the past to the Selectmen would contain pertinent information, i.e., hours of operation, truck routes, hauling, and equipment use. It was Craig Heafield’s understanding that an engineered plan needed to be submitted that included the information the Coordinator had listed. He indicated that previously he was required to submit the State permit with an attached sheet that contained
written information; he asked what else would be required. The Coordinator stated that the regulations required a plan; however, the regulations did not specify that the plan be prepared by a professional. She added that if a professional was chosen to prepare the plan the regulations stated that a professional seal should be added to the plan but it was not required. She suggested that the Board be asked to consider a combination of the permit and the plan together. She noted that the AOT permit would cover all drainage issues and would not need to be redone. Craig Heafield pointed out that by requiring a public hearing and notifying of abutters the pit owners were being treated as if they had not been previously operating. The Coordinator stated that the process of the public hearing should have been done all along and that according to State law there was not a way to renew a permit. She went on to say that the law clearly stated that to
amend, update, or renew the permit the same process had to be followed as for a new permit. Craig Heafield stated that he had been told at the time he applied for the State permit it was good for the life of the pit and every five years an updated plan needed to be provided. He asked why the Town could not issue the permits in the same way as the State and avoid the public hearing process. He added that there were not any other businesses in Town that were approved to operate their business and required to apply for approval every three years. The Coordinator answered that this issue was addressed in two separate statutes, 155-E and 485-A. She advised that the Planning Board could review and change the number of years in which a permit was required to be updated. Craig Heafield commented that it made sense to have the State and Town plans updated at the same time. Bo Strong asked the Board to consider changing the three year permit to a
five year permit to be on the same timeline as the State. The Chairman stated that the Board would consider this issue.
Bo Strong noted that he had another issue to do with crushing materials. He noted that the regulations called for a public hearing for any time crushing was to take place in the pit. He went on to say that the portable crushers used these days were quieter than the previous models and could be brought from the pit to the job site and back to crush materials during slow times or in between loads. He thought that crushing should be allowed during regular pit operating hours with no hearing required. The Chairman acknowledged Bo Strong’s suggestion.
Bo Strong stated that he could not locate within the regulations requirements relative to the handling of leftover material from a project. He asked if the pit owners were permitted to continue the process of bringing excess materials to the gravel pits for crushing and reuse. The Coordinator confirmed that the regulations did not contain requirements for the reuse of leftover material being brought to the gravel pits. She continued that the Selectmen had also asked this question of the Board and the Board had responded that it was appropriate for an operating gravel pit to bring leftover materials to the gravel pit; however, the specific language was not added to the regulations. Mark Suennen referred to page twenty-eight of the Earth Removal Regulations under Waste Disposal. He stated that
the section addressed items which could not be done, i.e., no disposal of solid and hazardous waste, septic, dredge spoils, and organic waste or debris. He pointed out that as long as the material being brought back to the gravel pit was not listed under the Waste Disposal section the practice was not expressly prohibited.
Warren Houghton stated that earlier during the discussion it had been mentioned that only one gravel pit in town, Granite State, was grandfathered. The Coordinator stated it appeared that only one gravel pit in town had filed the document that was required by law. Warren Houghton stated that his mother’s gravel pit was grandfathered by the State. The Coordinator said that she was aware that the pit was grandfathered under the AOT permit in terms of drainage because the outline of the pit was the same as it was originally but the specific form required by the State had not be submitted.
Warren Houghton commented that half the people in the audience did not understand what was contained within the Earth Removal Regulations and he wanted to know why the Board did not write material that was easily understood. Dave Elliott added that the regulations were over complicated and it did not seem that the Board even understood them. He continued that the previous Earth Removal Regulations were about three pages in length. Peter Hogan asked if Dave Elliott had a copy of the previous regulations that the Selectmen had administered. Dave Elliott answered yes. Peter Hogan stated that the regulations were created through ideas of the Planning Board that were sent to a subcommittee and subsequently sent to Town legal counsel. Warren Houghton asked if the Board could make a list of
the regulations in layman’s terms. Dave Elliott said that the Board should at least use a format that an average person could understand. He commented that he would not deal with these regulations without speaking with an attorney. The Chairman acknowledged Warren Houghton and Dave Elliott’s comments.
Willard Dodge stated that he agreed that it was redundant to require the pit owners to go through the permitting process every three years and that the Town should be on the same page as the State. He continued that it was a waste of money to notify abutters every three and five years. He asked why it was required to notice the abutters as he believed the Selectmen and Planning Board would be aware of any issues with an abutter prior to a scheduled meeting. He advised that the State regulations were only ten pages and were easy to follow. He continued that the thirty-six pages of the Town’s Earth Removal Regulations were ridiculous and unnecessary. Peter Hogan asked if the Board had applied the standard of “what were we trying to fix” to the Earth Removal Regulations and
how did thirty-six pages come about. The Coordinator referred to the exemptions of the Earth Removal Regulations and explained that State law listed projects that were exempt from obtaining a permit and the regulation attempted to give the Town a way to quantify whether or not a pit could qualify for the exemption; she noted that this took quite a few pages. She went on to say that because the Town decided they did not want to rely on the minimum excavation and reclamation standards in the statute it was determined that local requirements should be included in the regulations. She noted that an entire section explained the application submission process which was about five pages. She noted that on page twenty-five the Town’s regulations were addressed. She pointed out that legal information regarding waivers and amendments was contained at the end of the document. Sue Frost asked if the regulations were modeled after another town.
The Coordinator answered that the regulations were created following the model regulation of the South West Regional Planning Commission. Sue Frost asked if there were other towns currently following all of the standards listed. The Coordinator stated that there are many towns that follow this model, such as, Weare and Hollis. She noted that standard language could be found along with specific regulations those towns believed were important. She pointed out that the Earth Removal Regulations were created by the Planning Board and not a subcommittee.
Jay Marden of Gregg Mill Road asked if the three or five year permit period would discontinue the annual permit process that the Selectmen had previously used. Christine Quirk and the Chairman agreed that there would no longer be an annual permit process.
Jay Marden asked if a permit was required for removal of excess material from a project. The Coordinator answered that the removal of excess material was subject to the excavation standards as well as the $0.02 per yard tax to be paid to the State. Jay Marden’s understanding was that material being moved onsite of a subdivision was exempt from a permit; however, once the material was moved offsite a commercial permit needed to be obtained. Willard Dodge agreed that the regulations stated Jay Marden’s statement. Mark Suennen’s interpretation of the regulation was that if everything occurred within the lot it would be incidental to construction. He continued that excess material that needed to be removed would not necessarily require a permit but a hearing to request an
exemption would be necessary. Dave Elliott stated that there was no amount for materials being removed listed indicating when a permit was required. He noted that previously a permit was not required for any amount of material less than 5,000 yards. He continued that an incidental permit was required for material over 5,000 yards. He stated that the process for obtaining a permit was simple and required that a map to be drawn and pertinent information be provided. He stated that a gravel pit operating at less than 10,000 yards did not require any mapping. Jay Marden asked who would make the determination of what was considered “sufficient weight or volume to be commercially useful,” as listed on page nineteen of the Earth Removal Regulations. Dave Elliott commented that the document was missing this important information and contained lots of information that was repeated. The Chairman stated that the purpose of this input
session was to receive these comments.
Dave Elliott suggested removing the words “silviculture” from the regulations and replacing with its synonym “forestry” for the purpose of clarity.
Mark Suennen commented that there was a lot of merit to the previous statements of creating a threshold for the amount of material removed offsite that required a permit. He asked if the example of 5,000 yards was an appropriate threshold to use. Dave Elliott answered that the 5,000 yard threshold had been used since the permitting process was started in New Boston. He added that it was a simple process and was done in all the surrounding towns. Peter Hogan asked if 5,000 yards was appropriate or if 10,000 yards was more appropriate given the increased size of modern trucks. Dave Elliott agreed with Peter Hogan. Jay Marden pointed out that Peter Hogan had based his calculations only on traffic and not the impact on the land or the abutters by removing three times more gravel from the
pit.
The Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the audience. Kris Stewart of Francestown asked whether or not there was a possibility that the gravel pit owners could lose their use of the gravel pits during the permitting process because of complaints from abutters regarding noise or dust and if the Board would take into consideration the past history of the gravel pit. Mark Suennen stated that he would take into account the historical operation of the pit and whether or not it had operated in an efficient and effective manner. He believed that it was an issue of the abutter and not the Planning Board if the abutter simply did not like living next door to the pit. He noted that the Board would listen to the abutter but he did not foresee the Board shutting down an
effective, operating pit because an abutter did not like living next door to it. Kris Stewart asked if Mark Suennen’s position could be found in the regulations. Mark Suennen answered no. Peter Hogan believed that the regulations should include specific language that it would be expected that noise and dust are produced from a gravel operation and have to be kept at an industry standard. Kris Stewart asked if the Board could add language that allowed a permit to be good until such a time it was violated. The Chairman indicated Kris Stewart had made a valid point and that the Board would discuss and address this issue by the next public session on this matter.
Peter Hogan referred to page sixteen of the Earth Removal Regulations and questioned where the language in “A” had come from. The Coordinator answered that the language came from the statute. Christine Quirk believed the language came from 155-E, of the statute.
Dwight Lovejoy, Selectman, of 166 Parker Road pointed out that if a gravel pit owner was cleaning up their pit on a Sunday out of their work hours and someone complained the Board could revoke the permit and that was not fair. He commented that he did not understand how the gravel pit owners could run their businesses with all the regulations. The Chairman asked if it was Dwight Lovejoy, Selectman’s, opinion was that there should be no hours of operation. Dwight Lovejoy, Selectman, answered no. Christine Quirk pointed out that the Selectmen’s previous permitting process did not allow for equipment to be serviced on Sundays. Dave Elliott stated that during the early years there were no restrictions on hours of operation. Christine Quirk stated that the last nine years that
she had been a Selectman there have been restrictions on hours of operation. Dave Elliott commented that owning a gravel pit was a tough business and it was not possible to work a forty hour week and make a living. He added that there are a lot of situations where this can become an extreme hardship to be limited to the current hours.
Dave Elliott stated that he did not think it was appropriate to invite all the abutters back every three or five years to be involved in the permitting process. He continued that sometimes opening a gravel pit required the investment of hundreds and thousands of dollars for engineering, clearing, and road building and as such the owners should not be subject to being shutdown.
Warren Houghton asked what the cost of the permit would be. The Coordinator answered that the Town charged $25.00 per payment and that the amount listed in the regulations was based on a three year permit which accounted for the $75.00 cost. She noted that if the Board decided to change the three year period to five years then the listed permit fee would need to be changed as well. Warren Houghton stated that the State did not receive $0.02 a yard and that instead $100.00 was paid for the intent to excavate permit and New Boston received the $0.02 a yard in addition to a heavy tax bill.
Jay Marden asked if the Planning Board would be responsible for holding the permit hearings every five years and not the Selectmen. The Chairman confirmed Jay Marden’s statement. Jay Marden asked if this also related to new permits. The Chairman answered yes.
Kris Stewart asked if a compromise could be made with regard to the Saturday hours of operation that would allow for hauling to take place until 12:00 p.m. and work within the pit to be conducted until 5:00 p.m. He indicated that this would facilitate in preparation for upcoming jobs for the following work week. Peter Hogan asked if anyone was aware why the hours of operation stopped at 12:00 p.m. Willard Dodge answered that it was one of those things that happened over time. Dwight Lovejoy, Selectman, pointed out that hauling was prohibited out of Town on Saturdays. Craig Heafield stated that being prohibited from hauling out of town on Saturdays placed the gravel pit owners at a disadvantage because other surrounding towns permitted it to take place. Dave Elliott clarified that there
were no limitations to hauling on state roads at anytime. He continued that the limitations were relative to when it was allowed to have equipment running in the gravel pit.
The Chairman thanked all of the audience members for their input. He stated that there were a lot of consistent comments to be thought about during the next iteration of the Earth Removal Regulations. Mark Suennen suggested that the Board accept written comments. The Chairman agreed that written comments were welcome and reiterated that another public session would be scheduled. Skip Gomes asked if it would be possible to obtain the updated regulations two weeks prior to the public session. The Chairman noted that Skip Gomes had made a valid point regarding the distribution of the regulations.
NADEAU, ROBERT W. & CRYSTAL L.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Minor Subdivision/3 Lots
Location: Francestown Road
Tax Map/Lot #4/14
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Present in the audience was Rick Kohler of Todd Land Use Consultants, LLC, and Gary Perkowski, neighbor. The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He stated that there were a couple of waiver and no outstanding fees. He asked Rick Kohler to present to the Board.
Rick Kohler advised that the subdivision was Tax Map/Lot #4/14. He stated that the property was on Route 136, approximately a half a mile westerly of the intersection of Route 136 and Colburn Road. He continued that the property was 22.75 acres and had approximately 785’ of frontage. He noted that 7.75 acres of the property was wetlands with the remaining acreage being upland. He pointed out the location of the boundary of the parent lot to the Piscataquog River on the plan. He indicated the location of a perennial stream that flowed in an easterly direction through and off the property and into a large swamp area. He pointed out the location of proposed lots #4/14, #4/14-1, and #4/14-2. He stated that the current parent lot #4/14 was 22.75 acres. He continued that
the proposed lot would become 4.65 acres and about a third of the lot was wetlands. He indicated that lot #4/14-1 was a proposed back lot that would be 14 acres with 6 acres of wetlands and 50’ frontage. He stated that proposed lot #4/14-2 would be 3.7 acres with 1.33 acres of wetlands. He indicated the locations of the test pits that had been conducted on the plan. He went on to say that all of the test pit data was the same and that there was a perched water table measuring at 2’ which would be more than suitable for residential development. He stated that the proposed frontages for the lots were as follows: lot #4/14 – 309’; lot #4/14-2 – 50’; and lot #4/14-2 – 420’. He stated that the proposed driveway would have one common entrance with a hammer head within 100’ of the frontage at which point the driveways would break away from each other; he indicated the location of the proposed
driveways on the plan. He noted that the proposed driveways were designed to have turn around area for fire trucks. He asked the Board for any questions.
Christine Quirk asked if lot #4/14-2’s frontage was all wetlands. Rick Kohler answered yes. Christine Quirk asked if there would be a way to put a single driveway to service that lot. Rick Kohler answered that a single driveway could not be designed without wetland impact.
Rick Kohler stated that there were two wetland impacts on the property that had been approved by the State; he pointed out the locations on the plan. He added that State approval for the driveway had been obtained as well as being cleared by the Heritage Bureau and Historic Resources.
Peter Hogan asked if there was any way to get separate driveways for the lots. Rick Kohler answered that he had not designed them but it was possible for each lot to have its own driveway. Peter Hogan believed that the applicant was required to prove the possibility that the driveways could be constructed and permits could be obtained otherwise the proposed lot would not be deemed a lot. Rick Kohler stated that in the past he had handled this issue by designing the driveways under the assumption that he would receive State and local approval. Peter Hogan was of the opinion that there could not have been only an assumption but that the construction of the driveways had to have been established. Rick Kohler stated that in the past common driveways had been proposed and individual driveways had
been shown without applying for wetland permits. Peter Hogan commented that he was unsure if there was ever a plan that was so blatantly obvious that a driveway could not go into the lot. He asked for Rick Kohler to point out the location of the Route 136 culvert; Rick Kohler pointed out the location of the culvert. Peter Hogan stated that the area for a possible single driveway flooded. Rick Kohler stated that a driveway could be designed for the area in question; however, he would not submit the driveway for approval from the State as he was not considering that location for the driveway. It was Peter Hogan’s opinion that the State would not issue a permit for the possible single driveway location which would make proposed lot #4/14-2 not a valid lot. He continued that he did not believe a driveway could be constructed at the area in question because the frontage of the property would not support a driveway. The Chairman added that
he believed Peter Hogan’s opinion was consistent with the Zoning Regulations and what the Planning Board had done in the past. Christine Quirk noted that a previous subdivision had to obtain a permit for a driveway to establish that it could be constructed even though the applicant did not use the permit. Rick Kohler stated that he had worked on a subdivision on Bedford Road where a driveway was illustrated as an alternative to a common driveway. He stated that he could design a driveway, submit it to the State, be approved and not use it. The Chairman, Christine Quirk and Peter Hogan agreed. Rick Kohler asked when this process had ever been done in the past. Peter Hogan did not think there had ever been a lot where it was so blatantly obvious that a driveway could not be constructed.
Rick Kohler asked for the Board’s advice on how to proceed. Peter Hogan suggested creating a two lot subdivision instead of three lot subdivision. The Coordinator noted that this subdivision would be on a State road and would require State driveway permits. She continued that two driveways would need two separate permits. Peter Hogan stated that he did not have a problem with the remaining lots. The Coordinator explained that each lot would need to prove that it could establish its own driveway and the back lot would still need to do that. Peter Hogan stated that establishing a driveway for the back lot was a small technicality. He asked how much frontage lot #4/14 had. Rick Kohler answered that there was 309’ of frontage for lot #4/14. He added that the
frontage could be shifted to 109’ to maintain the 50’ frontage requirement. The Coordinator clarified that there was not only an issue of the dredge and fill permit but also the driveway permit. She explained that if the lot could not obtain an entrance from the State then the lot would not have its own driveway. Peter Hogan stated that he did not believe the Board had considered driveways on a State road.
Peter Hogan believed that a driveway design for lot #4/14-2 would have need to be substantially higher than the road creating a positive pitch into the road otherwise the driveway would be underwater. Rick Kohler asked what location Peter Hogan was referring to because the possible location of the driveway was a steep area. Peter Hogan stated that the area he was thinking of became level with the road during rainstorms. Rick Kohler pointed out the location on the plan that Peter Hogan was referring to and noted that it was not the same area that he was referring to. Peter Hogan stated that a site walk could help clarify the location.
The Chairman asked Peter Hogan if he would be satisfied that three lots could be developed if the applicant could provide approval from the State that three separate entrances for the driveways could indeed be constructed. Peter Hogan stated that if the applicant could prove the three separate entrances he would then not have an issue with the common driveway.
Rick Kohler asked if the Board saw any other limiting factors about the lot. Peter Hogan commented that it did not look like a great lot but he did not see any other limiting factors. He added that a site walk may indicate different information. He stated that the common driveways split early on which was consistent with the Board’s criteria. He continued that because the property was on a State road it did not seem likely that three separate permits would be issued. Rick Kohler pointed out that the surrounding driveways also crossed wetlands. Peter Hogan stated that he would entertain the thought that he was wrong and he could confirm at the site walk.
Rick Kohler requested that the Board make a determination that the application was complete and schedule a sit walk.
The Chairman asked for questions from the audience. Gary Perkowski of 414 Francestown noted that he was an abutter and pointed out the location of his property on the plan. He added that he did not have any questions at this time.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept the application of Robert W. & Crystal L. Nadeau,
Location: Francestown Road, Tax/Map Lot #4/14, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman noted that the deadline for Board action was August 12, 2010.
Rick Kohler asked the Board to address the waiver requests. Peter Hogan stated that he did not have any problems with the Traffic and Fiscal Impact Studies. He stated that he would reserve comment on the Environmental Impact Study until after the site walk. Mark Suennen agreed with Peter Hogan.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waiver for the Traffic and Fiscal Impact studies for the subdivision of Robert W. & Crystal L. Nadeau, Location: Francestown Road, Tax/Map Lot #4/14, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman pointed out that the applicant’s waiver with regard to the locus map was not applicable as the Town regulations had been amended. He stated that a request had been to waive the requirement that an ISWMP be designed and stamped by an engineer and instead accept Bob Todd, LLS’s, stamp.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the waiver and allow Bob Todd, LLS, to provide his resume as given in the waiver as reason to waive the requirement for a stamp by a professional engineer. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Coordinator explained that the bond estimate for the CUP used the road bond
estimate form and seemed to cover upland areas of the driveway as well as the wetland crossings. She continued that it was only necessary to include the two small impact areas for the wetland crossings. Rick Kohler indicated that he would speak with Jane at his office to resolve this issue.
The Board scheduled a site walk for Saturday, June 12, 2010, at 8:30 a.m. Mark Suennen asked if the driveway had been staked. Rick Kohler answered that he would have the driveway staked for the site walk. The Chairman asked if Gary Perkowski was interested in attending the site walk; he was not.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the subdivision of Robert W. & Crystal L. Nadeau,
Location: Francestown Road, Tax/Map Lot #4/14, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to July 27, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman advised Gary Perkowski that he would no longer be receiving notices of hearings but he was more than welcome to attend the following hearing on July 27, 2010.
MARRINAN, WILLIAM & DONNA
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/CUP/to install one wetland crossing
Location: Wilson Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/38
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Present in the audience was Rick Kohler of Robert Todd Land Use Consultants, LLC.The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He stated that at the previous hearing bonding issues were discussed and the Board had discouraged the applicant’s request for a waiver for the bond.
Rick Kohler advised that he was present in place of Bob Todd, LLS. He continued that Bob Todd, LLS, and Mr. Marrinan were firm in their opinion that the money should be bonded by a prospective buyer at the time of implementation. The Chairman noted that the Board did not disagree with Rick Kohler’s statement. Rick Kohler added that the bond should not preclude the applicant’s ability to obtain a CUP. The Chairman asked if this was the applicant’s final offer. Rick Kohler confirmed that the applicant was requesting the CUP with the condition that the money be bonded at the time the plan was implemented by the future land owner.
Christine Quirk asked if at the previous hearing the consensus of the Board was that the new applicant should apply for the permit. The Chairman answered that because the Board was unsure when someone would come in to do the work the bond amount may be outdated and a mechanism would have to be in place to bring the numbers up to whatever the current amounts on the estimate form may be, perhaps by adding 10% inflation a year. He continued that the other choice was to bond the crossing now or bond it and do the project now because that was how the Board had handled this issue in the past. Christine Quirk commented that she was concerned With bonding the project for the future because the Planning Board would need to keep track of unforeseen items that could arise through the years.
Rick Kohler stated that this issue was not very different from the wetlands permit. He explained that a wetlands permit would be granted for a project; however, the oversight and adherence to the plan would not happen until the plan was implemented. He stated that the Wetlands Bureau was not precluded from issuing a permit and allowing it to run for five years. The Chairman pointed out that the Wetland’s Bureau did not collect a bond for the wetlands permit. Rick Kohler noted that there was not a way to obtain a building permit and implement the plan without bonding money to the Town. The Chairman asked when the wetlands permit would expire. Rick Kohler answered that the permit would expire in five years. He continued that the future landowner would need to have the money
bonded for the driveway at the time of implementation. The Chairman asked if the applicant would agree to a condition of 100% inflation being added to the bond. Rick Kohler indicated that he would need to discuss the issue with the applicant. The Chairman stated that in the past applicants would complete the work right away or withdraw the application without prejudice.
It was Rick Kohler’s opinion that the cost of the bond either now or in three years was not an issue as the project could not be completed without the bond at the time of implementation. The Chairman stated that there was an issue because the Board would be approving a bond amount and if conditions changed within the next five years the bond amount may not be sufficient to complete the project. Rick Kohler believed that the future applicant would be required to fill out a new performance worksheet and provide the accurate amount of funds at that time. The Chairman asked for the Coordinator to clarify. The Coordinator stated that the Board could add specific conditions in the motion to address this issue, i.e., five year deadline for submission, add 10% inflation each year, or require a new
performance worksheet at the time the building permit was applied for.
Rick Kohler stated that the applicant was concerned with potential changes to the regulations that would require additional design work to be completed. He added that the applicant wanted to resolve this issue and guarantee that it would become the responsibility ofthe future landowner.
Peter Hogan believed the bond would need to be adjusted yearly to account for rising costs. Christine Quirk stated that she liked the suggestion of increasing the bond annually by 10%. Mark Suennen pointed out that the regulations limited the Board to a maximum of a 10% increase yearly. The Chairman stated that this issue had been presented to the Board in the past and was not handled this way. Mark Suennen asked what precedent the Board would be approving this condition. The Chairman answered that the Board would be setting a precedent that items could be approved for future completion. Mark Suennen stated that a way to mitigate the Town’s risk with regard to setting a precedent could be to set the permit expiration date for five years without renewal. Christine Quirk
asked if the Coordinator if there were any other issues with this resolution. The Coordinator answered no and indicated that the permit would be flagged to ensure that a hold would be placed on the building permit until the bond was submitted. Peter Hogan asked for the amount of the bond. Mark Suennen answered that the bond was for the amount of $44,164.67. Peter Hogan stated that he would not have an issue if the future applicant wished to submit a construction estimate that would be more accurate than the 10% annual inflation. Christine Quirk agreed with Peter Hogan.
The Chairman noted that the date certain for the conditions precedent needed to be determined. Mark Suennen stated that the date certain should be based upon the expiration of the original dredge and fill permit without extension. The Chairman added that conditions precedent and conditions subsequent would have the same date. Rick Kohler stated that the expiration date of the permit was March 11, 2015. Mark Suennen asked if there were any issues with creating a deadline that was the same for the conditions precedent and subsequent. The Coordinator asked the Board if they would consider extending the deadline for the conditions subsequent. The Board agreed to extend the deadline for the conditions subsequent by six months. The Chairman stated that the date certain for the
conditions precedent would be March 11, 2015, and the date certain for the conditions subsequent would be September 11, 2015.
The Chairman asked in what form the bond would be submitted. The Coordinator answered the bond would have to be submitted in the form of a suitable bond, letter of credit or cash. The Board decided for purposes of avoiding future review of the form of the bond the applicant would need to submit the bond in the form of cash.
Christine Quirk pointed out that item number two of the conditions precedent that allowed for written request of extension needed to be removed. The Chairman agreed with Christine Quirk. The Coordinator suggested adding the language “applicant or property owner” to item number two the conditions subsequent. The Chairman added that the language should also be included in the conditions precedent.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of William Marrinan to effect one (1) wetland crossing on property on Wilson Hill Road, known as Tax Map/Lot #6/38, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of the financial security in the amount of $44,164.67 adjusted annually by a 10% increase or submission of a current Town of New Boston bond estimate and in the form of cash.
2. Any revisions to the site plan as decided by the Board at the hearing (if applicable). The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be the expiration of the State’s original Dredge and Fill permit with no extension, therefore March 11, 2015, 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, the applicant and/or assigns are 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 one (1) wetland crossing, as shown on the approved construction design plan.
2. The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon notification to the Planning Department by the applicant and/or assigns 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 September 11, 2015.
Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Board took a five minute recess.
MISCELLANOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 8, 2010.
1. Approval of minutes of May 11, 2010, distributed by email.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the meeting minutes of May 11, 2010, as written. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Endorsement of a Non-Residential Site Plan Review for Kiki’s Restaurant and Gravity Tavern, KMMM Properties, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #19/6, 35 Mont Vernon Road, by the Planning Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman advised the endorsement would be made at the close of the meeting.
3a. Minutes of May 24, 2010, meeting of Piscataquog River Local Advisory Committee.
3b.Minutes of June 21, 2010, meeting of Piscataquog River Local Advisory Committee.
3c.Miscellaneous emails regarding Twin Bridge cul-de-sac length waiver discussed at Piscataquog River Local Advisory Committee meeting on May 24, 2010.
The Chairman noted that items 3a, 3b, 3c were related and he addressed them together. He stated that the above-referenced matters referred to incorrect information that PRLAC in their meeting minutes.
5a. Pre-construction Meeting Agenda and Information, received May 27, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Indian Falls/Susan Road Connection – Bussiere, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
5b.Pre-Construction Meeting Minutes, re: Indian Falls/Susan Road Connection – Bussiere, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
6.Meeting Notes, Core Goals and Key Actions, and Ranking of Top Projects for Regional Economic Development Steeting Committee Public Workshop on May 24, 2010, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman advised that the above-referenced meeting was the last one for the committee that he and Dean Mehlhorn had served on.
7. Read File: General John Stark Scenic Byway Council Agenda for June 16, 2010, meeting.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
8. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing form the Town of Greenfield, re: installation of a wireless telecommunication facility.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
9. Distribution of the May 25, 2010, meeting minutes vial email for approval at the meeting of June 22, 2010.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion
occurred.
11. Update, re: DOT Driveway approvals for KMMM Properties, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #19/6, 35 Mont Vernon Road.
The Coordinator stated that the Planning Office had followed up with the DOT regarding what requirements were necessary to obtain an updated driveway permit. She continued that Scott Looney had advised that letters were issued stating that driveways were updated because towns called and asked for them. She explained that there were only four reasons to update a driveway permit: 1) Parking is added in the right-of-way; 2) Pave existing driveway; 3) Changeuse; or 4) Increase the size of the business substantially.
12.Letter dated June 7, 2010, from New Boston Department Heads, to New Boston Planning Board, re: Cul-de-sacs.
The Chairman stated that the above-referenced letter would be discussed at a subsequent
meeting after the Board members had an opportunity to review it.
Peter Hogan commented that item 12 and item 3 were related. The Chairman disagreed and stated that item 3 was relative to misinformation. Peter Hogan pointed out the item 3 indicated that PRLAC endorsed the cul-de-sac length for the Twin Bridge subdivision.
Christine Quirk stated that the application was scheduled for the next meeting. She asked if the applicant needed to have State approval at that time for a through road to Lull Place in order to have consideration. Peter Hogan asked if the applicant would be required to improve Lull Place should they move forward with the through road. The Coordinator noted that specifics for improvement had yet to be made but that would be a requirement.
Mark Suennen asked if this matter could be further discussed at the next meeting prior to the Twin Bridge subdivision public hearing. The Coordinator advised that a discussion regarding road construction monitoring was scheduled for the next hearing prior to the Twin Bridge subdivision public hearing.
Christine Quirk asked if the Board had been advised by the State if the wetland crossing had been approved for the proposed through road. The Coordinator answered no. Christine Quirk and Peter Hogan agreed that if the approval was not obtained in time for the next scheduled public hearing there would not be any further discussion of the subdivision at that time.
The Chairman noted that after reading through the letter from the department heads it appeared that they were asking the Board for information. Peter Hogan stated that the letter recapped how the Planning Board acts with regard to cul-de-sac length waivers. He read the following, “…to reap the benefits of cul-de-sacs, such as, reduce traffic in residential areas, the opportunity to downscale the size of the street, the opportunity to create more intimate neighborhoods communities must limit the number of vehicles in the street.” He stated that the letter did point out how the Planning Board acted and the reasons for those actions.
The Chairman stated out that the third paragraph of the letter asked the Board to supply justifications for twenty-four of the thirty approved waivers. Peter Hogan suggested that the department heads review past meeting minutes to gather the justifications. The Coordinator stated that some of the waiver justifications that were being requested dated back to 1985 and quite often there were no records as to why the waivers were granted. Peter Hogan believed that there would be plenty of information available to cover the last fifteen years. He continued that the departments continued to repeat the following statement, “The 1,000’ length was reached by the department heads as a result of determining the capabilities of the individuals…” He stated that the reason for
increasing the cul-de-sac from 600’ to 1000’ was because it was marginally more justifiable than 600’ and was based on an arbitrary number. The Coordinator clarified that the cul-de-sac lengths were based on the fire truck hose lengths. Peter Hogan asked if the Board had ever received a demonstration on how the Fire Department fought fires. The Chairman stated that he had received a demonstration. Peter Hogan noted that the Board had not been provided with an educational demonstration.
Peter Hogan asked if the department heads would be satisfied with a 1,000’ cul-de-sac with eight driveways in excess of 1,000’. The Chairman pointed out that common driveways could be utilized and Peter Hogan added that back lots could also be utilized.
Mark Suennen asked who “Lucy” referred to under the section of the letter entitled “Safety Hype”. The Coordinator explained that “Lucy” was the name of an individual that was cited in an article that was referenced within the letter.
The Coordinator stated that in the interest of further collaboration and good working relationships with all of the departments the Board needed to decide how to proceed with this matter. The Chairman agreed with the Coordinator and advised that upon further review of the letter a future discussion would be scheduled.
The Coordinator advised that the Board did not have to act on the Twin Bridge Subdivision at the next public hearing. She explained that the Board could ask for a mutually agreed upon extension or vote to deny the application if they felt they needed additional time to discuss this matter.
Peter Hogan commented that he would never consider granting the cul-de-sac length wavier if the applicant could not make the through road. The Coordinator stated that the Subdivision Regulations indicated that the only way an applicant could obtain a cul-de-sac length waiver was to prove that a through road could not be constructed. She continued that by effectively proving that a through road could be constructed a cul-de-sac would not be allowed. She noted that a waiver request could be submitted and that the Board would need to base their decision based on hardship and/or the spirit and intent of the regulations being met.
Peter Hogan stated that the applicant would not want to move forward with the through road in which case the Planning Board would require less density in order to grant the cul-de-sac waiver request. The Coordinator pointed out that State law changed and reasons for granting the waiver cannot be based on preference. She explained that they could only grant the waiver based on hardship and intent.
The Chairman stated that the Board would address this issue and discuss at future meeting.
13. Memorandum received June 8, 2010, with attachment from Barbara Griffin, Vice Chairman, SNHPC Executive Committee, to SNHPC Executive Committee Members, re: Housing Needs Assessment Report, for review and comment at the meeting of June 22, 2010.
The Coordinator advised that above-referenced matter had a deadline for comments of June 15, 2010. She asked for any comments to be emailed to her or to SNHPC directly by June15, 2010.
14.Memorandum dated June7, 2010, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Planning Board Members, re: PB Goals.
The Coordinator stated that Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, would like to work on signs. She stated that the Planning Board could set-up a subcommittee to review signage and parking. Mark Suennen commented that he was in favor of having Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, conduct a review of the signage regulations and report to the Planning Board. The Board decided that Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, should meet with the Board to determine whether it was necessary to form a subcommittee.
15. Copy of Senate Bill 382, Final Version, for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that the Subdivision Regulations would need to be changed to reflect the above-referenced matter. She explained that the Town currently required that all completed applications needed to have all State permits in place. She continued that the change prohibited considering an application as incomplete based only on lack of permits. She noted that the change was effective July 17, 2010. The Coordinator suggested moving the permits to the list of requirements necessary for final approval.
10. Discussion, re: retaining wall at New Boston Hardware.
The Coordinator stated that Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, inquired if the Board would be interested in discussing the above-referenced matter. She explained that Steve Young wanted to construct a retaining wall between the river and his parking lot that would alleviate the flooding that occurred in that area on a regular basis. Christine Quirk asked if State approval was needed. Peter Hogan answered yes. He added that he would not have an issue with the use of quarry stone to construct the retaining wall. Mark Suennen believed that the improvement would require a non-residential site plan review. Peter Hogan agreed because of the aesthetics that were involved. Christine Quirk agreed that Steve Young be scheduled to discuss the retaining wall with the
Planning Board.
The Board agreed to schedule an informational meeting.
4. Letter dated June 2, 2010, received June 2, 2010, from Charles F. (Chip) Meany III, Weare Land Use Coordinator, re: Site Plan Review of an existing business located at 21 B & B Lane, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman asked if there were any issues relative to regional impact. The Coordinator stated that after review of the above-referenced matter she did not feel there was regional impact to discuss. She advised that the Board could indicate that they thought there was a regional impact and be treated like an abutter. The Board determined that they should not be listed as an abutter.
16. Discussion, re: Securities for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator advised that an issue had come about with Douglas Hill’s Subdivision with regard to a letter of credit. She explained that the bond supplied from TD Bank was set to expire on June 15, 2010, and would not be renewed until after the time of expiration. She noted that because TD Bank would not renew the bond there would be a period of time that the Town would be without coverage. She continued that TD Bank had suggested that if the Town had concerns about waiting for the bond to be reissued then they could call the bond. She stated that she had contacted Town Counsel who informed her that they had not heard of the bond being handled in this way. She stated that Town Counsel had advised that the bond be called because not having security was a violation of subdivision
approval. She stated that TD Bank had advised that they would renew the bond on this day but it had not yet been received. She went on to say that the Planning Office would begin the process of calling the bond if it was not received by June 9, 2010.
The Coordinator informed the Board that she had discussed with Town Counsel that the Reggie Houle Subdivision did not currently have security. She stated that there was a court case dealing with this issue in which the town was faulted for having people living in a subdivision without security. She continued that the town was found to have a fiduciary responsibility to the residents of the subdivision.
The Coordinator stated that the Board could write to Reggie Houle indicating that they would consider revoking the subdivision and placing a cease and desist on the building permits if substitute security was not provided to the Town within thirty days. She continued that if the security had not been obtained by the thirty day deadline then the revocation process would begin. She advised that $60,000.00 +/- was needed to resolve remaining punch list items.
Mark Suennen asked if Reggie Houle was aware of the expired bond. The Coordinator answered that Reggie Houle was aware of the expired bond and had represented to her that he was unable to obtain the security. Shannon Silver stated that Reggie Houle would like to meet with the Board to discuss this issue.
The Chairman asked if there was only one spec house on the subdivision. The Coordinator answered that in addition to the spec house there was also one occupied home. Mark Suennen commented that the Board should confirm whether or not the CO was granted prior to the expiration of the bond.
The Board agreed that a letter should be sent to Reggie Houle advising that the Board would consider a revocation of the subdivision. Peter Hogan commented that the Planning Office should move forward with obtaining a bond for the Douglas Hill Subdivision.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted, Minutes Approved:
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk 07/27/2010
| 
