The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Douglas Hill and Mark Suennen, alternate Dean Mehlhorn and Ex-officio Rodney Towne. 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 Brandy Mitroff, Craig Heafield, Willard Dodge, Sue Tingley, Warren Houghton, Steve Elliot, Rick Kohler, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, Jay Marden, Donna Mombourquette, James Desenevich, Andrew Carlson, Ian McSweeney, Andre Araujo, Kathleen McAndrews, Doug Coyle, Rita Nemon, April Teshima, Heather Minnich, John Melito, Ron Perry, Dana Lorden, Neil Smith, John Neville, Earl Sandford, P.E., Kelly Howe, Jennifer Webber, Eileen Mahoney, Katie Napierkoski, Ed Colburn, Charlie Peak, Bo Strong, Vincent Iacozzi, Tom Carr, CWS, Bob & Carol Huettner, Tris Gordon, Charles Cleary, Esq., Jason Martel, Dave Elliott, Morgan Hollis, Esq., Brian Roy, P.E., Jeff Rider, P.E., and Shiv Shrestha.
Public Input Session, re: Earth Removal Regulations
The Chairman began a discussion for the second public input session for the Earth Removal Regulations. He noted that the first public input session was held on June 8, 2010, at which many comments were made, and on July 27, 2010, the Planning Board discussed the comments at a subsequent meeting. He advised that a public hearing would be scheduled at such a time when the Board would be looking to accept the revised Earth Removal Regulations.
The Chairman indicated that a draft of the Earth Removal Regulations had been mailed on August 5, 2010, to interested parties to allow for two weeks of review prior to this second public input session. He explained that the major changes to the document had been highlighted. He noted that the section of the Earth Removal Regulations that referred to exemptions had been moved to the back of the document. He further explained that the Board had been advised by Town Counsel on the issue of placing definitions throughout the Regulations and as such a separate packet of the definitions would be provided by the Planning Office. He continued that the Board was waiting for Town Counsel’s comments on "incidental to construction", noting that the Board wanted to review on a case by case
basis.
The Chairman asked for comments and/or questions from the audience. Brandy Mitroff of Thornton Road stated that she had given further thought to the Board’s decision on eliminating the current limitations imposed by the Town on gravel pits for Saturday hauling. It was her opinion that not only were direct abutters of gravel pits affected by operations but also those residing along hauling routes. She continued that the Board would be giving large commercial pits the opportunity to operate for a sixth day which would give little consideration to direct abutters and those residing on the hauling routes. She added that in the decades that the current hours of operation had been in place she had not heard any complaints from gravel pit owners and as such she believed that the Saturday
restrictions should continue.
The Chairman stated that at the previous meeting the gravel pit owners were in favor lifting the Saturday restrictions. Brandy Mitroff pointed out that only the smaller gravel pit owners were in attendance at the last hearing and not the larger gravel pit owners. She continued that she was unsure if the larger gravel pit owners would decide to operate on Saturdays but she did not want to “open that door”.
Rodney Towne noted that the Regulations did provide for the Planning Board to deal with safety or public welfare issues. Brandy Mitroff stated that the only things the gravel pit owners could be penalized for were operating outside of the hours of operation or truck drivers driving too fast. Rodney Towne asked Brandy Mitroff if she was in favor of not allowing any operations on Saturday. Brandy Mitroff answered no and continued that she was in favor of current Saturday hours of operations.
Willard Dodge stated that the majority of gravel pits in New Boston were small and it was rare for the larger pits to have customers that received deliveries on Saturdays. He continued that homeowners in New Boston were more likely to be looking to receive material to be delivered on Saturdays. He pointed out that a ten-wheeler truck from Weare had been hauling all summer on Saturday and Sundays on Tucker Mill Road. He stated that if gravel pit owners from Weare could operate in New Boston on Saturdays than the local New Boston gravel pit owners should also be allowed to operate.
Brandy Mitroff asked if there was a way to limit the size of trucks that could operate on Saturdays to prevent larger gravel pits from operating 18-wheeler trucks. She added that she was not opposed to eliminating the local hauling only restriction. The Chairman stated that he was unsure from a legal standpoint of how to write a regulation that would satisfy Brandy Mitroff’s concerns. He noted that Brandy Mitroff’s point was valid, however, at the last meeting it was decided that the majority was in support of removing the Saturday restrictions.
The Chairman asked for further comments or questions regarding the elimination of the Saturday restrictions. Rodney Towne pointed out that operation was prohibited on Sundays and specified holidays and as such gravel pit owners were unable to access their pits in the event of an emergency on those restricted days. He asked if a provision could be made under the restrictions section of the Earth Removal Regulations that would allow gravel pit owners to access their lots in emergency situations, i.e., sanding purposes due to snowfall. The Coordinator stated that there had not been an issue with the restriction in the past. Rodney Towne stated that Emergency Management superseded the Earth Removal Regulations; however, for gravel pit owners would not be allowed access to their lots in cases where
they were responsible for sanding driveways. The Chairman advised that Rodney Towne’s concern would be considered and be discussed at a later meeting.
Craig Heafield stated that he was unsure why the gravel pit owners were being required to go through the permitting process which involved public hearings with notifications sent to abutters simply because oversight of the gravel pits was being moved from the Board of Selectmen to the Planning Board. The Chairman pointed out that the permitting process through the Board of Selectmen was done on an annual basis. Brandy Mitroff asked if current gravel pit owners were grandfathered or if they were required to reapply for their permits. The Chairman answered that current gravel pit owners held permits that expired on an annual basis. Douglas Hill added that the length of time that the permit was valid was being extended. Craig Heafield reiterated that it appeared that current gravel pit owners
were being required to go through the same permitting process as new gravel pit owners.
Douglas Hill asked what the catalyst was for updating the Earth Removal Regulations. Rodney Towne answered that the jurisdiction changed from the Board of Selectmen to the Planning Board. The Coordinator explained that the Town’s gravel pit ordinance had been out of date since 1989 when State law changed for the second time. She noted that the first State law change took place in 1979. She continued that State law said that the Planning Board was the Regulator of gravel pits; however, the Town had voted to have the Board of Selectmen as the Regulator of gravel pits. She explained that in 2009 the Board of Selectmen created a warrant article that named the Planning Board as Regulator of gravel pits in accordance with State law that was subsequently voted on and passed.
The Coordinator stated that the existing pits could prove if they were exempt from the permitting process. She pointed out that the Earth Removal Regulations did not necessarily require engineered plans and therefore it would not be costly to be in compliance. She continued that AOT permits and handwritten sketches could be provided and attached to plans. She stated that once the requirements were met for a gravel pit permit, the permit would be valid indefinitely unless the gravel pit owner was found not to be in compliance, the gravel pit owner decided to cease the operation, or the entire contents of the gravel pit had been depleted.
Willard Dodge commented that RSA Section 155, E, covered all of the gravel pit requirements in order to protect the Town, with the exception of some local information.
Craig Heafield asked in addition to the information provided on the original permit application from the Board of Selectmen, what would be required of the pit owners to provide in order to be up to date with the Regulations. He also asked if a public hearing with notice to abutters was required to prove exemption. The Coordinator answered that a public hearing with notice to abutters was required to prove exemption. She added that to prove existing status and be in compliance with RSA Section 155, E, it would be necessary to review pages twenty-six and twenty-nine of the Earth Removal Regulations.
Brandy Mitroff stated that it was not long ago that the Board of Selectmen had required the gravel pit owners to go through a similar process with hearings and that she would be frustrated to through the process again without any real changes to the State Regulations. She asked the Planning Board if there was a way to grandfather the work done by the Board of Selectmen. The Coordinator stated that she had not located any records that had indicated that the hearings of which Brandy Mitroff was speaking had proved any exemptions. She continued that several gravel pit owners were not required to obtain an AOT permit due to the age of the gravel pit or because there was no issue with sedimentation or runoff. Brandy Mitroff noted that the Coordinator was one of the gravel pit owners that appeared
before the Board of Selectmen. The Coordinator stated that Brandy Mitroff’s statement was accurate and continued that she was not required to obtain an AOT Permit for her pit. It was Brandy Mitroff’s opinion that it was not the fault of the gravel pit owners that the Board of Selectmen did not keep appropriate records with regard to the hearings. The Coordinator clarified that the Selectmen had been advised by the State that the Town’s renewal process was not valid and that a new permit with associated hearings, needed to be issued upon expiration. She also clarified that the hearings that Brandy Mitroff had referred to did not pertain to exemptions or grandfathering but were relative to updating site specific (AOT) permits.
Willard Dodge stated that the exemption in the Earth Removal Regulations would not apply to gravel pits that had plans of expansion. The Coordinator stated that if the year could be proved when the gravel pit began as well as the area that had always been intended for expansion the exemption would apply. Willard Dodge commented that the Coordinator’s statement was impossible to do. The Coordinator believed that there was a way to track down most of the required information. She referred to page twenty-seven of the Earth Removal Regulations that listed the things to do to prove an existing exemption and allowable expansion.
Brandy Mitroff asked if the Earth Removal Regulations were from RSA Section 155, E, or if they were the Town’s Regulations. The Coordinator answered that the Removal Regulations were RSA Section 155, E, expanded to explain how to produce to the Planning Board the information that would meet the statutory requirements. Brandy Mitroff questioned why the Board of Selectmen had not applied RSA Section 155, E, at the last permitting hearings. The Coordinator answered that this should have been done in 1991 and that the Board was attempting to tidy the Regulations for everyone.
Sue Tingley asked if she would be required to have a public hearing with notice to abutters when her permit expired in March of 2011. The Chairman explained that she would be required to have one public hearing in order to be in compliance with the updated Earth Removal Regulations. Sue Tingley commented that she had gone through this process three years ago and questioned the need to go through it again. The Chairman answered that Sue Tingley’s question was noted and that the Board would research the question and provide an answer at a later meeting.
Sue Tingley asked how long the gravel pit permit would be valid. The Chairman answered that the permit would become indefinite. He continued that an inspection would take place annually.
Rodney Towne asked the gravel pit owners in the audience if they had been required to attend a public hearing with the Board of Selectmen during the renewal process. Craig Heafield answered that the permit renewal was done through the mail.
The Chairman asked for further questions or comments; there were no further questions or comments from the audience. The Chairman summarized that the following two questions remained relative to the Earth Removal Regulations: 1) What differences are there between the previously required application for a gravel pit permit and the new application for gravel pit permit?; and 2) When did the permitting hearings last take place with the Board of Selectmen and why are the gravel pit owners being required to go through the process again?
Brandy Mitroff asked if the Planning Board received the files from the Selectmen. The Coordinator answered yes. Brandy Mitroff further asked if the Board was familiar with the background of the gravel pits. The Coordinator answered yes.
Warren Houghton asked if the Board had an available copy of the gravel pit application. The Chairman answered that prior to creating the application the Board needed to decide what would be listed. Warren Houghton commented that his mother’s gravel pit had been in operation for forty-eight years and he did not understand how the rules continued to change. He believed that the Board should keep the Earth Removal Regulations as simple as possible.
The Chairman stated that at the last meeting regarding Earth Removal Regulations a question had been raised about the number of yards of material that could be removed without any permits or plans to be required. He noted that a determination of the number of yards had not been made. Mark Suennen added that a suggestion had been made at the last meeting that any amount of material less than 5,000 yards would not require a permit; he asked the audience if the 5,000 yard amount was reasonable. Sue Tingley pointed out that existing gravel pit owners were allowed to remove 10,000 yards of material without a permit. The Coordinator pointed out that the 1973 gravel pit ordinance allowed for 10,000 yards of material to be removed without a permit as long as the appropriate waiver request had been granted. Douglas Hill suggested allowing the removal of 5,000 yards of material without a permit and requiring the waiver process for amounts between 5,000 yards and 10,000 yards. Craig
Heafield asked if these amounts would apply to material incidental to a project. Douglas Hill clarified that these amounts were only applied to excavation and not incidental.
The Board and the audience members agreed that a permit should not be required for excavating 10,000 yards of material per site, i.e., 10,000 yards for the entire life of the site.
Warren Houghton commented that for the last couple of years his mother’s gravel pit only generated enough money to cover the cost of the Town’s property taxes and permit fees. The Chairman pointed out that under the previous permit process a gravel pit owner would be required to pay an annual fee and under the new permit process a one time fee was required.
Warren Houghton asked what Town entity was responsible for the gravel pit owner’s bonds. Mark Suennen stated that bonds would continue to be under the Town of New Boston; however, the Planning Board would now have the responsibility of calling the bond instead of the Board of Selectmen.
Sue Tingley asked what protection gravel pit owners had against trespassers. Douglas Hill advised that trespassing was a police matter.
The Chairman informed the audience that another public input session would be scheduled. Douglas Hill recommended that interested parties review the Earth Removal Regulations thoroughly to be able to provide the Board with feedback.
Warren Houghton asked if a rough draft of the gravel pit permit application would be provided at the next public input session. The Chairman answered that a rough draft would be available at the next public input session.
NADEAU, ROBERT W. & CRYSTAL L.
Public Hearing/Minor Subdivision/3 Lots
Location: Francestown Road a/k/a Route 136
Tax Map/Lot #4/14
Residential-Agricultural “R-A”
Present in the audience were Rick Kohler, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, Donna Mombourquette, James Denesevich, Jay Marden, and Ian McSweeney. The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He noted that the application was accepted as complete on June 8, 2010, with a deadline for Board action of August 12, 2010. He advised that the applicant had agreed to extend the deadline to August 24, 2010, and that if the matter was not resolved this evening another extension would be required. He indicated that a revised bond estimate had been received. He noted that a new set of plans had been submitted; however, an outstanding issue remained relative to the common driveway needed to be built to NFPA standards as required by the Driveway Regulations. He
further noted that a note needed to be added to the SWMP that indicated stumps would be taken offsite.
Rick Kohler provided the Board with a declaration for the driveway regarding NFPA standards. He noted that the plan had been updated to include note #16 that provided stumps would be disposed of offsite. He further noted that note #18 had been added to the plan and indicated that the driveways had been designed to NFPA standards.
The Chairman advised that a sample deed had not been submitted. Rick Kohler requested the Board’s assistance on what language should be included relative to the easements. The Chairman stated that typically an applicant submitted their sample deeds with the application and they were reviewed as part of the application approval. He stated that the applicant could obtain copies of examples from other applications but believed that the applicant should submit their specific ideas to the Board for review. Rick Kohler asked if the sample deed could be a condition of approval. The Chairman answered yes and noted that it was already listed under the conditions precedent.
Rick Kohler questioned what the condition of approval would be relative to bond fees and if there was a time limit to submit the bond. The Chairman answered that the bond fees needed to be submitted prior to the signing of the mylar plans. Rick Kohler requested that the applicant be given 90 days to submit the bond fees. The Chairman advised that the CUP financial security needed to be submitted in the form of cash or check.
The Chairman informed the Board that a formal vote needed to be taken on whether or not the applicant had proved that the three proposed lots were lots. Rick Kohler stated that this issue with the lot in question had been resolved at the previous meeting. He noted that a conceptual wetland crossing had been designed for the most easterly lot to illustrate that the lot could indeed have its own driveway. The Chairman pointed out that historically the Board required more specific factual proof than what had been provided to determine the validity of a lot. Douglas Hill asked for the length of the right-of-way to the back lot. Rick Kohler answered that the length of the driveway for the back lot was 500’. He added that the conceptual wetland crossing was about 50’ and had
been designed to be in compliance with State Regulations and it was assumed that the crossing would be approved. Douglas Hill stated that the land to the back lot was between a 15% and 25% slope. Rick Kohler confirmed Douglas Hill’s statement.
The Chairman asked for comments or questions from the audience; there were no questions or comments from the audience.
Douglas Hill asked if an additional wetland crossing would be constructed at the entrance of the back lot. Rick Kohler answered yes and further stated that there would be a total of two wetland crossings. He explained that the wetland crossing for the easterly lot was proposed to be built over an existing impact due to a logging operation that had occurred two years ago. Douglas Hill asked for Rick Kohler to identify the type of wetland on the easterly lot. Rick Kohler answered that the wetland was classified as a PF01E, a fern like wetland that was saturated or seasonally flooded and not a scoured water course.
The Chairman asked for further comments or questions from the Board. It was Mark Suennen’s opinion that three independent driveways could be constructed on the proposed lots.
Rodney Towne asked Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, if he had had an opportunity to attend a site walk. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, indicated that he had not attended a site walk; however, he noted that after speaking with Rick Kohler he was satisfied with the proposed driveway plans.
The Chairman stated that the Board needed to consider the following two issues: 1) It was unlikely that the applicant would be able to obtain State permits to construct three driveways so close together on a State road; and 2) Historically the Board had required permits and plans to be produced to prove the validity of the lots.
Mark Suennen MOVED to recognize that proposed Tax Map/Lot #4/14 & #4/14-2, Location: Francestown Road, Residential-Agricultural, “R-A” District, have both demonstrated the difficulty in getting a State permit for independent driveways for all three proposed lots and that the applicant has demonstrated that if the State were to allow a permit for three separate driveways, three separate driveways are feasible on the frontage of the individual lots and therefore we can accept the existing lots as they could be considered separate lots. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plat of Land of Robert W. and Crystal L. Nadeau, Tax Map/Lot #4/14, N.H. Route 136 a/k/a Francestown Road, for the subdivision of three lots, and the Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plan for Tax Map/Lot #4/14, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, and revised Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plan, including all checklist corrections notes of waivers granted and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Submission of an executed Declaration of Common Driveway Easement and the fee for recording same at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds.
4. Submission of sample deed language regarding the Common Driveway, for review by Town Counsel, at the applicant's expense, if necessary.
5. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the
recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
6. Submission of the financial security for the Conditional Use Permit as detailed in the separate motion therefore.
7. Approved Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans may be resubmitted as the final Individual Stormwater Management Plans at the time of application for a building permit provided the builder complies with those plans. If critical areas are to be disturbed beyond those shown on the Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans, revised Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be prepared and submitted for approval. If the Pre-Engineered Stormwater Management Plans are not to be used at the time of application for a building permit new Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be submitted for approval. In any event, the bonds for the Individual Stormwater Management Plans must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be November 24, 2010, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the application as complete, and to grant the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of Robert and Crystal Nadeau to effect two (2) wetland Crossings impacting 2,750 s.f. of wetland on property on N.H. Route 136 a/k/a Francestown Road, known as Tax Map/Lot #4/14 as the four conditions for granting the Permit have been found to exist, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of the financial security in the amount of $12,164.33 and in the form of check.
2. Submission of a minimum of three (3) blue/blackline copies of the revised site plan as decided by the Board at the hearing (if applicable).
3. The subdivision plan shall not be recorded until the Conditional Use Permit conditions precedent have been fulfilled.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be November 24, 2010, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should the conditions to approval not be fulfilled by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
Completion of the site improvements as related to the two (2) wetland crossings, as
shown on the approved construction design plan. The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon notification to the Planning Department by the applicant that the project has been completed, and a compliance hearing is held and confirms that the project has been satisfactorily completed by no later than August 24, 2011.
Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
DIAZ, KENNETH P. & LINDA T.
Compliance Hearing/CUP/ (1) Wetland Crossing
Location: Arrowwood Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/35-10-1
Residential/Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, Donna Mombourquette, James Denesevich, Jay Marden, Ian McSweeney and Jay Marden.
The Chairman explained that the application and plans were approved with conditions on October 10, 2006, with a compliance deadline for the conditions subsequent of November 30, 2007. He noted that extensions had been granted and the new deadline for the conditions subsequent was June 27, 2011. He stated that a compliance site walk had taken place on August 4, 2010. He noted that there were outstanding fees in the amount of $42.54 relative to certified letters.
The Chairman stated that at the site walk the Board had determined that grass growth needed to be completed for stabilization. He advised that the applicant had produced photographs of the grass growth.
The Board determined that there was stabilization and encouraged the applicants to monitor the growth to make sure it continued.
Douglas Hill MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the installation of one wetland crossing on Arrowwood Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/35-10-1, by Kenneth and Linda Diaz, and to release the security being held for said installation with a condition that the outstanding fees in the amount of $42.54 be submitted by September 23, 2010. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman seated Dean Mehlhorn as a full voting member in Peter Hogan’s absence.
TWIN BRIDGE LAND MANAGEMENT, LLC
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/26 Lots
Location: Twin Bridge Rd & West Lull Place
Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 & 3/5
MHP w/R-1 allowance & “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, Donna Mombourquette, James Denesevich, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, Brandy Mitroff, Charles Cleary, Esq., Ian McSweeney, Jay and Dorothy Marden, Dave Elliot, Steve Elliott, Willard Dodge, Jason Martel, Bob and Carol Huettner, Tris Gordon, and Morgan Hollis, Esq..
The Chairman noted that the application was accepted as complete on March 23, 2010, with a deadline for Board action of May 27, 2010. He continued that two previous extensions had been made and if the application was not approved at this meeting an additional extension would be required. He pointed out that the applicant was waiting for comments from the Town Engineer’s review prior to submitting updated plans.
Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that he was present to discuss a few items from the previous meeting. He advised that a checklist had been submitted. He also advised that Northpoint Engineering still needed to review the SWMP.
Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, noted that the road length waiver had been approved at the previous meeting. He continued that during the discussion of the road length waiver request comments had been made regarding density and utilities. He stated that with respect to density the developers and environmental groups worked together to create a balance between development and the environment. He pointed out the location of Tax Map/Lot #3/5 and identified it as a cluster subdivision that was commented on. He explained that the allowed density for the property was twenty lots and that the developers had agreed after meeting with the Russell Foundation to lose four lots in order to meet the expectations of the environmental groups. He stated that as long as the proposed density was acceptable to
the Planning Board the applicant was willing to install underground utilities. Douglas Hill pointed out that the installation of underground utilities was part of the road length waiver. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, acknowledged Douglas Hill’s statement. He continued that the applicant was very firm with the proposed density.
Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, identified the location of the Martel property, Tax Map/Lot #3/5-1 on the plan as well as the location of their driveway that had an easement on Tax Map/Lot #3/5. He explained that because the aforementioned area was no longer needed for access the applicant proposed a lot line adjustment that would provide the Martels with frontage for their property. He noted that the Russell Foundation supported the lot line adjustment. Rodney Towne asked if a conservation easement would be provided with the lot line adjustment. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, answered no and stated that there would be a lot line adjustment and parcel A would become part of the Martel property. Mark Suennen asked if the lot line adjustment was contingent on approval of the subdivision. Tom
Carr, Wetland Scientist, answered yes. The Coordinator pointed out that the Martels were not listed as an owner under the pending subdivision, the lot line adjustment was not part of any notices, and as such a separate application would be required. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, asked if the lot line adjustment could be done in conjunction with the subdivision. The Coordinator answered that the lot line adjustment could not be done in conjunction with the subdivision because it was a minor subdivision that required a plan. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, went on to say that the Martels would be receiving one acre of land and the proposed open space was approximately 64% of Tax Map/Lot #3/5.
Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, acknowledged that it was premature to discuss the specifics of the phasing of this subdivision but advised the Board of the applicants’ intention to phase the project.
Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that he would like to table this matter to the next available meeting in order to address outstanding issues. The Chairman pointed out updated information needed to be submitted one week prior to the scheduled meeting.
Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that there was an issue with the cul-de-sac length. He explained that there was an area of the cul-de-sac road that the applicant had assumed was included in the road length waiver request; however, Northpoint Engineering commented that the area in question required its own waiver request. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, read an email from Northpoint Engineering that stated the following, “The Town’s maximum cul-de-sac length is 1,000’. It is our understanding that the applicant received a waiver from the Planning Board for the 2,913’ length of Wright Avenue. A similar waiver should be obtained for 1,910’ dead end length of Walker Way, if not received already.” He continued that the applicant had assumed that the approved
road length waiver was for the entire road system. The Chairman asked for the length of road from Wright Road to the end of the cul-de-sac. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, answered that the length was less than 1,000’. Mark Suennen stated that the Board had a similar issue in another location and cautioned the Chairman to be careful in answering this question. The Chairman stated that the Board would consider this matter.
Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, stated that Section 204.7, E, 5, of the Zoning Ordinance, should be discussed at the next meeting relative to obtaining a CUP for earth removal incidental to any permitted use in the Groundwater Resource Conservation District according to the Aquifer Transmissivity Map. The Chairman advised that if the applicant needed a CUP an application would be required.
The Chairman asked for any questions or comments. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, asked in the event that the proposed lot line adjustment was approved would it be necessary for the Martels to reapply for a driveway permit. He pointed out that if a driveway permit was required a 50’ setback from the river needed to be considered as well as the replacement of the existing culvert. Douglas Hill clarified that the Martels driveway was an existing driveway and not a through road. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, also confirmed that the Martels driveway was not a through road but rather an existing driveway.
Brandy Mitroff returned to Northpoint Engineering’s comment with regard to the length of the “first” cul-de-sac. She stated that according to safety criteria two safety accesses should be provided to any subdivision and this “first” cul-de-sac should be measured from Twin Bridge Road. She did not recall any discussion of this having taken place. The Chairman acknowledged Brandy Mitroff’s concern and suggested that she attend the next scheduled meeting at which the matter would be discussed.
Donna Mombourquette of West Lull Place questioned whether the road length waiver that was approved at the previous meeting limited the applicant to the 2,913’ cul-de-sac length.
The Chairman explained that the approved road length waiver was based on the cul-de-sac length that was presented on the plan.
Andrew Carlson of 98 Lull Road pointed out that abutting his property was an open 12 x 12 well that would be in close proximity to the proposed subdivision. He noted that the well posed potential safety concerns. He also asked if the Board would address concerns that the cluster development created for abutters relative to the impact on their wells. Douglas Hill stated that it was difficult to address. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, commented that the Town’s Master Plan addressed the protection of aquifers as well as the impact from development.
Jay Marden of Gregg Mill Road asked Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, to identify the four lots that the applicant had decided not to develop to accommodate the environmental groups. Tom Carr, Wetland Scientist, answered that he could not identify those lots on the plan he had with him. Jay Marden did not believe a lot line adjustment should be granted to the Martels and that the land in question should become part of the land being deeded to the Town for conservation. The Chairman noted that because a separate application needed to be submitted for the lot line adjustment this matter would be discussed at a subsequent meeting.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the deadline for Board action and to adjourn Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, Location: Twin Bridge Road & West Lull Place, Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 & 3/5, MHP w/R-1 allowance & “R-A” District, to September 14, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Board took a five minute recess prior to the start of the next hearing.
FREDERICK K. LORDEN REVOCABLE TRUST (OWNER)
HARVEY J. DUPUIS FAMILY TRUST (OWNER)
S & R HOLDINGS, LLC (APPLICANT)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/42 Lots
Location: McCurdy & Susan Roads
Tax Map/Lot #12/19, 96 & 93-34
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Brian Roy, P.E., Morgan Hollis, Esq., Dana Lorden, Shiv Shrestha, Jay & Dorothy Marden, Andre Araujo, Kathleen McAndrews, Doug Coyle, Neil Smith, Dave Elliott, and Steve Elliott.
The Chairman stated that the application cover sheet had been submitted and waivers had been requested. He continued that an informational session had taken place earlier in the year.
Brian Roy, P.E., stated that the subdivision application had first been submitted in 2008. He noted that the review process had begun on plans with the same configurations as presented on the current plan. He continued that in February of 2009 the project stalled for various reasons and subsequently a new developer had taken over the project. He explained that in February of 2010 he had appeared before the Board to review the previously submitted application and discuss how to best move forward with the subdivision. He noted that since the February 2010 meeting the plans had been revised to incorporate comments from the first review conducted by Northpoint Engineering and resubmitted for final subdivision.
Brian Roy, P.E., stated that the revised plans addressed the Board’s concerns regarding Susan Road. He continued that the plans included a lot line relocation with existing lot # 12/93-34. He noted that all the deed restrictions and easements originated from the parent subdivision, Olde Colony, and the applicant did not want to incorporate additional restrictions into the open space subdivision. He explained that alternatively, the lot line relocation was created that established the through road and took the remainder of the land and incorporated it with the open space subdivision. He added that as a result of the aforementioned lot line relocation lot # 12/93-34 would remain part of the Olde Colony Subdivision.
Brian Roy, P.E., stated that the applicant proposed to consolidate lot #12/19 with lot #12/96 that created one large lot with frontage on Susan and McCurdy Roads. He continued that the newly consolidated lot would be subdivided to create 40 open space lots and 2 open space lots. He noted that the open space would be increased by 2.13 acres with the addition of the 12/93-34 land. He further noted that the cul-de-sac was expanded to meet current regulations.
Brian Roy, P.E., explained that items relative to design, i.e., swales, side slopes, drainage and road grade, had been revised and incorporated into the plan.
Brian Roy, P.E., advised that a CUP had been submitted for three proposed wetland crossings. He pointed out the location of three intermittent stream crossings on the plan that would impact 6,200 s.f. He noted that no other wetland impacts existed on the plan. He went on to say that the applicant would be installing open bottom culverts that would meet the NH stream crossing requirements as well as Army Corps requirements.
Brian Roy, P.E., reiterated that a full application had been submitted along with a CUP and checklists. He continued that all the original impact studies, test pit logs, soil logs, and economic analysis had been resubmitted. He stated that the road names that had been previously approved would remain the same. He added that driveway permits had been submitted for the proposed lots along McCurdy Road as well as access to McCurdy from Susan Road. He noted that an updated bond estimate and ISWMP bonds had also been submitted.
Brian Roy, P.E., asked for comments and questions from the Board. The Chairman advised the Board that they could vote on whether the application was complete or address specific questions or comments.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the application of Frederick K. Lorden Revocable Trust (Owner), Harvey J. Dupuis Family Trust (Owner),
Shiv K. Shrestha (Applicant) Major Subdivision/42 Lots w/ open space, Location: McCurdy Road & Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 12/96 & 12/93-34, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman indicated that the deadline for Board action was October 28, 2010. He asked Brian Roy, P.E., if he had received the list of outstanding issues and if so did he have any questions. Brian Roy, P.E., confirmed that he had received the checklist and stated that he did not have any questions for the Board.
The Chairman noted that four copies of the deed language relative to the sprinklers had not been submitted. Brian Roy, P.E., advised that in lieu of submitting deed language a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions had been submitted. The Coordinator pointed out that the Town required that a sample deed be submitted.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to identify the outstanding issue with the CUP. The Coordinator explained that a copy of the State dredge and fill permit plan had been recently submitted and there were no remaining outstanding issues with the CUP.
The Chairman stated that a waiver request had been submitted for application fees. He explained that the waiver request was based on a 2009 discussion wherein the previous application had been withdrawn. He continued that the applicant did not believe that an application fee should be assessed with the resubmission of the application.
Douglas Hill asked for clarification regarding the number of lots for the proposed subdivision. Brian Roy, P.E., clarified that the applicant was proposing 40 new lots with one lot line relocation on the existing lot on Susan Road. Douglas Hill questioned that there would be 41 buildable lots. Brian Roy, P.E., confirmed that there would be 41 lots.
The Chairman commented that the waiver request for application fees appeared to be consistent with what the Board had previously discussed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver request for the application fees with the understanding that the applicant continued to be responsible for secretarial fees and abutter notification fees as needed. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the applicant had submitted a waiver request for the impact studies; however, he was unsure of the purpose of such a request as the studies had been previously submitted. Brian Roy, P.E., explained that it was his understanding that in lieu of redoing the studies the previous studies could be resubmitted and that a waiver was necessary. The Chairman advised a waiver for the studies was not necessary. He added that the Board would need to review the submitted studies to determine whether or not they would accept them.
The Chairman noted that a waiver request for the engineering review fees had been submitted. Brian Roy, P.E., indicated that the applicant was no longer seeking a waiver for the engineering review fees and had submitted the required $3,500.00.
The Chairman stated that a waiver request for the abutter fees associated with the CUP had been submitted. The Coordinator advised that no one had ever made such a request because common sense had always dictated that if the CUP was part of the subdivision only one notice would be sent and the applicant would only be charged once.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver for submitting a separate $7.00 per abutter notice fee for the CUP, separate from the subdivision abutter notifications. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the applicant had submitted a waiver request regarding Stormwater Management, and Erosion, and Sediment Control Regulations. It was his understanding that some areas of the subdivision would experience an increase in runoff but the total runoff for the entire development would be less. Brian Roy, P.E., confirmed the Chairman’s statement. Douglas Hill asked Brian Roy, P.E., to elaborate on the waiver request. Brian Roy, P.E., explained that through the stormwater analysis for overall runoff it was determined that some of the smaller sub-areas would not have a detention basin creating a minor increase in runoff. He continued that the overall runoff at the bottom of the hills would be less because there would be compensation for the small overages with detention
basins located in other places throughout the subdivision. He identified the three areas that would see an increased amount of runoff on the plan. He noted that their information was based on calculations for a ten year storm. Douglas Hill questioned the feasibility of the ten year storm as the Town had experienced two 100 year storms in recent history. Brian Roy, P.E., explained that the State of NH did not calculate 100 year storms in small areas such the one in question. Douglas Hill expressed his concern that the road had previously washed out on two separate occasions. Brian Roy, P.E., indicated that because of the flooding they were concentrating on creating less overall drainage. He noted that the minor increases would not impact downstream. The Chairman asked if the Town Engineer would be reviewing these plans again. The Coordinator answered yes. The Chairman suggested that the Board wait on voting on this waiver
until further review from the Town Engineer.
The Chairman indicated that a waiver request had been submitted to changing the certification process for the set bounds. He explained that the Board had always permitted a certificate of bounds set to be submitted as a condition of approval, acknowledging that it makes no sense to set bounds before construction takes place and, therefore, a waiver would not be necessary. Brian Roy, P.E., stated that he was fine with the Board’s policy on this issue; however, he wanted to make sure the Board was aware that the Regulation required the bounds to be set before the subdivision was approved. The Chairman acknowledged Brian Roy, P.E., reasoning for the waiver and stated that the Board would review the Regulation wording.
The Chairman stated that a waiver request for road grade at the intersection had been submitted. He explained that the Board had discussed this matter at length. He noted that the Town Engineer and the Road Committee had been involved in the discussions and it was the consensus that the proposed road grade was acceptable. Mark Suennen stated that the applicant had provided three alternatives to the -3% road grade that had been reviewed and the Board had determined that the proposed design was the best design presented.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver to the negative 3% for 75’ from the center of the intersection and allow for the proposed negative 1.5% grade for the same distance that meets AASHTO standards. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that a waiver request for the driveway to Lot #42 entering McCurdy Road at 9% rather than the required 8% had been submitted. Brian Roy, P.E., pointed out that McCurdy Road was at 9% in this location and the driveway had been moved as far away from the top of the hill as possible. Douglas Hill stated that the area in question was not a great spot. The Board decided to postpone a vote on the waiver request until after a site walk.
The Board scheduled a site walk for September 9, 2010, at 5:30 p.m.
The Chairman asked for further comments or questions. Andre Araujo of 46 Susan Road asked what was the size of the proposed lots and if they met Town requirements. Douglas Hill answered that the proposed lots were part of an Open Space Subdivision and did meet requirements.
Kathleen McAndrews of 21 Susan Road asked for the location of the first lot on the right from the entrance of Susan Road to be identified. Brian Roy, P.E., identified the location on the plan and explained that the lot would become part of the open space and would not be buildable.
Jay Marden asked if the conservation portion of the subdivision would remain in perpetuity with the Town. Brian Roy, P.E., stated that there would be a homeowners association as well as a conservation restriction. Douglas Hill asked for clarification that the ownership of the open space would belong to the property owners and not the Town. Brian Roy, P.E., confirmed Douglas Hill’s statement. Jay Marden commented that it would be helpful to have the conservation area highlighted in green on the plans. The Chairman asked if Brian Roy, P.E., could highlight the conservation area on the plan for the next hearing; Brian Roy, P.E., agreed to do so.
Jay Marden asked who would hold the conservation easement. Douglas Hill clarified that there was no conservation easement and the area in question would remain under the control of the homeowners association. Morgan Hollis, Esq., further explained that the conservation area would be subject to a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions that was for the benefit of the Town as well as the home owners. He continued that the Town was given enforcement rights. He went on to say that restrictive covenants would be put in place to advise home owners of their ownership rights; however, the property was subject to restrictions and covenants prohibiting active construction or development. Jay Marden asked if the entire conservation area was subject to DES Wetlands approval. Morgan Hollis,
Esq., answered that the entire area was dedicated and restricted as part of the DES approval. He continued that in order to obtain the approvals and fill of the wetlands it was necessary to restrict the open space, giving the State of NH the right to insist that the area not be developed. Jay Marden questioned if paths or trails could be constructed on the conservation property. Morgan Hollis, Esq., answered that some passive trail activity was permitted.
Doug Coyle of 289 McCurdy Road asked how visible the proposed lots would be from McCurdy Road. Douglas Hill answered that there were would not be any lots at the entrance of the subdivision. Brian Roy, P.E., added that the lots would begin about 700’ from the entrance.
Doug Coyle asked for the value of the proposed homes. Douglas Hill answered that the Board was unsure of the value of the homes.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the subdivision of Frederick K. Lorden Revocable
Trust (Owner), Harvey J. Dupuis Family Trust (Owner), Shiv K. Shrestha (Applicant),
Major Subdivision/42 Lots w/ open space, Location: McCurdy Road & Susan
Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 12/96 & 12/93-34, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to September 28, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
SUSAN LECLAIR REVOCABLE TRUST
Compliance Hearing/CUP/ (2) Wetland Crossings
Location: Wilson Hill & Bedford Roads
Tax Map/Lot #9/24
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. No one was present in the audience for this application.
The Chairman stated that the application and plans were approved with conditions on June 28, 2005, with a compliance deadline of June 30, 2007. He noted that extensions had been granted and a new deadline for compliance was June 1, 2010, and a compliance site walk had taken place on August 4, 2010. He continued that the bond and the Dredge and Fill Permit had expired. The Chairman indicated that following the site walks of both locations the Board had determined that neither location had been completed according to plan. He noted that the applicant had provided photographs of work that had been completed following the site walk.
The Chairman stated that he had viewed the property prior to the meeting and it had appeared that more work had been completed; however, grass had not grown and it did not appear to be stabilized. He continued that the length of the Wilson Hill Road driveway was extended and the second wetland was filled in. Douglas Hill commented that a building permit would not be issued until the area was stabilized.
Mark Suennen stated that based on a strict interpretation of the information the Board had the applicant had illegally filled the wetlands. He pointed out that the dredge and fill permit expired on May 18, 2010, and the bond expired on August 10, 2010. He suggested that the matter be tabled until the applicant could prove to the Board that they had a valid permit for the work completed and that the work was bonded. Shannon Silver explained that the bonding company would not renew the bond because too much time had passed since the date of the original bond and there was concern that the work would not be completed. It was Mark Suennen’s position that the applicant continued to be responsible for providing the Town with a bond. He added that the applicant also needed to provide a
permit that proved they were legally allowed to complete the work. He stated that it would a terrible precedent for the Board to accept something as complete that was done illegally. Rodney Towne agreed with Mark Suennen’s statement.
Mark Suennen recommended that the Board take no action until it could be proven that the work had been completed with a legal permit and that the work was bonded for completion in accordance with the plans. The Chairman pointed out that the Board could also choose to deny compliance.
Mark Suennen MOVED to table the acceptance of compliance until November 1, 2010, with the expectation that the applicant proves to the Board that the work was completed legally with a legal permit and provide evidence of such or the Board will take up the matter again. Rodney Towne seconded the motion. Mark Suennen and Rodney Towne voted AYE. Douglas Hill and Dean Mehlhorn abstained. The Chairman voted AYE and the motion PASSED.
JOHN & DENISE M. NEVILLE
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Design Review/NRSPR
Development of lot to accommodate commercial building
Location: Whipplewill Road
Tax Map/Lot #3/63-24
Commercial “Com” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Earl Sandford, P.E., John Neville, Kathleen McAndrews, Heather Minnich, April Teshima, John Melito, Ron Perry, Jennifer Webber, Eileen Mahoney, Rita Nemon, and Kelly Howe.
The Chairman stated that the application form and cover sheet had been submitted and there were no outstanding fees. He indicated that the applicant had chosen to follow the design review process and that was the purpose for this first hearing. He explained that at this preliminary hearing the Board would hear the applicant’s proposal and discuss issues that required further consideration. He noted that within thirty days a site walk would be scheduled, followed by a work session.
Earl Sandford, P.E., stated his intention to present a proposed site plan for the applicants. He identified the location of the property on plan. He explained that the applicant currently operated a shop that was located on the first lot and the proposed construction was located on the second lot.
Earl Sandford, P.E., noted that in March of 2009 the applicant had received a letter from Town requesting that work be halted on the second lot until such a time that a gravel pit permit was obtained or a site plan was applied for and approved. He continued that the applicant had decided to move forward with an application for a site plan.
Earl Sandford, P.E., explained that there was a 40’ or 50’ grade between the existing lot and the back line and as such there was a need for serious excavation, a balance of excavation and fill, or a tremendous amount of fill. He indicated that he had designed the area to be fairly flat with a 3% grade for drainage. He added that the building would be located in the middle of the lot.
Earl Sandford, P.E., advised that the applicant would be seeking a lot line adjustment to accommodate entry onto the second lot; he pointed out the location of the lot line adjustment on the plan. He continued that an entrance would be constructed off Whipplewill Road. He stated that a detention pond would also be constructed that would facilitate a sizable storm.
Earl Sandford, P.E., went on to describe the slopes and contours that would be created on the site, noting that a 1:1 return ledge cut would likely be created with a 1:2 slope with a shelf every 10’, although the shelves could not be properly planned due to irregularities during blasting. Douglas Hill asked if the applicant intended to make a 30’ blast cut. Earl Sandford, P.E., confirmed that there would be a 30’ blast cut.
Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that a 100’ x 100’ building was being proposed and it would be surrounded by grass. He continued that the applicant planned on providing a 30’ natural buffer before the cut would begin.
Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that he had a question for the Board regarding how much flexibility there was in terms of buffers. He noted that he had started with the required 25’ and then went an extra 5’ to give a 30’ natural area from the property line before the cut started. He noted that the layout was proposed to allow tractor trailer access to the back of the building with a more office like look at the front to establish a pleasing aesthetic. Earl Sandford, P.E., went on to say that onsite drainage would be caught in a detention pond with a controlled outlet to daylight. He noted that a small easement would be needed on the abutting Neville parcel.
Earl Sanford, P.E., advised that the proposed hours of operation would be the same as the applicant’s existing hours of operation for his shop, 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
The Chairman asked for clarification of the areas that were proposed to be green. Earl Sandford, P.E., noted that the Whipplewill Road was not located centrally within the Whipplewill Road right-of-way so that there was 25’ of treed area within the road right-of-way. He noted that starting at the north west corner of lot 3/63-24 there was approximately a 100’ green buffer before the ledge cut began. He noted that there was also a natural drainage way in this area that he did not want to intercept and redirect to the constructed drainage pond. In summary, Earl Sandford, P.E., noted at least a 30’ green buffer between the property lines and the start of the ledge cut all the way around. The Chairman asked if the back side would be green. Earl Sandford, P.E.,
answered that the back side would remain natural without alterations. The Chairman asked for clarification that gravel would exist on the inside of the orange line on the plan to the proposed building. Earl Sanford, P.E., answered yes, with the exception of a concrete apron at the entrance for the trucks.
Earl Sanford, P.E., stated that the applicant was looking for flexibility with regard to time frame as it could take up to five years for the project to get to grade. Douglas Hill asked if the applicant’s intention was to conduct blasting over a five year period. John Neville answered that his plans were contingent on the economy. He continued that to complete the project all at once was not feasible and being allowed to stretch the project out would make it easier. He noted that he did not expect the project to take five years but with the state of the economy he did not want to represent that he would complete the project within one or two years.
Douglas Hill asked why the project was not being considered an excavation as there would be blasting and sale of material. Earl Sandford, P.E., explained that the blasted material would be considered incidental removal for making the site commercially viable. Douglas Hill asked how much material the applicant would be removing. John Neville estimated that about 40,000 to 50,000 yards of material would be removed. Earl Sandford, P.E., added that the applicant was attempting to maintain the flatness from the existing site and as a corollary to that not to disturb the residential abutters’ view. Douglas Hill asked for the residential area to be identified; Earl Sandford, P.E., identified the location of the residential homes in relation to the proposed building.
The Chairman invited questions and comments from the audience. Rita Nemon stated that she resided in the home next to the applicant’s shop. She advised that she had been told that an entrance to the second lot would not be allowed from the north end of Whipplewill Road. She continued that the abutting neighborhood was residential with lots of children and she did not understand why the applicant would consider constructing a pond in the proposed location and she asked if the pond would drain. Earl Sandford, P.E., answered that the pond would drain. Douglas Hill added that the proposed pond was a detention pond. Rita Nemon stated that she was concerned with the potential noise, pollution, traffic, and affect on the wells. She continued that she was unsure of how the
neighbors would benefit and expressed that five years of potential blasting was unacceptable.
April Teshima of 26 Whipplewill Road asked for clarification of how the applicant intended to proceed with the proposed grading. Earl Sandford, P.E., answered that the applicant intended on utilizing all excavation to achieve the desired grade. April Teshima asked why the applicant did not chose to use fill for the project. Earl Sandford, P.E., answered that the option of filling the site was not the best because it would lift the site making the proposed building viewable from the surrounding neighborhood. He also explained that using fill would create the need for the moving the truck entrance closer to the residential neighborhood and the applicant wanted to keep all activity as close to Route 114 as possible. April Teshima commented that the potential noise from the trucking activity
could not be worse than the noise from the blasting. Heather Minnich of 48 Whipplewill Road agreed with April Teshima and stated that during the previous blasting project her home had suffered cracks in the foundation. April Teshima stated that during the last blasting project she had hired an attorney to investigate why the blasting was taking place as she had received no notice. Douglas Hill explained that blasting was allowed and abutters did not have to be noticed.
John [Melito] of 26 Whipplewill Road read the following from the New Boston Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations, “The purpose of the “Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations” is to promote a balanced, responsible, and desirable growth while considering the public health, safety, welfare and convenience; to insure that sound site utilization principles are followed and that appropriate support services and facilities are provided; to avoid development that may have a negative environmental impact; to avoid undesirable and preventable elements of pollution such as noise, smoke, soot, particulates, or any other discharge into the environment which might prove harmful to persons, structures, or adjacent properties and to value the character of the development so as to be consistent with the
desired character of the Town.” He questioned how the proposed project complied with the Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations.
The Coordinator explained that the Town’s Zoning Ordinance sets into place what uses were allowed in Town, for instance, contractor's yard, was permitted in the Commercial District, and the Non-Residential Site Plan Regulations take the uses and describe how to proceed. She noted that the purpose statement read by John Melito was correct and that by following the Regulations the purpose would be met.
John Melito stated that his biggest concern was the potential noise from the project and he only wished to enjoy the piece and quiet of his home.
John Neville stated that he first moved onto the property fifteen years ago with approved hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. He continued that due to a complaint from an abutter claiming that trucks were being started prior to the allowed 6:00 a.m. start time he had the hours of amended to 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. He clarified that he did not start running equipment at 5:30 a.m.; only the trucks. He welcomed the Board to review time cards and surveillance video that showed equipment was not running at 5:30 a.m. He stated that similar to gravel pit operations he anticipated that removal of materials relative to the project would run from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He advised that prior to the start of the previous crushing operation he had contacted Burton Reynolds for advice on how to
proceed with the project with as little impact on the abutters as possible. He stated at that as a courtesy to the neighbors he did not begin his operations until 8:30 a.m.
Eileen Mahoney of 40 Whipplewill Road asked for the purpose of the proposed building to be identified. John Neville answered that the proposed building would serve the purpose of a contractor’s garage.
Eileen Mahoney asked if the 30’ buffer and steep drop off was significant and if there would be fences to prevent accidents. Earl Sandford, P.E., answered that terraces would be constructed to prevent falls. He also acknowledged that safety concerns would need to be addressed.
Eileen Mahoney asked if the building was going to have a foundation or pad. Earl Sandford, P.E., answered that whether the building would have a foundation or pad needed to be determined.
Eileen Mahoney stated that she was concerned about the potential of hazardous materials affecting the abutters’ wells. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that it was his understanding that the wells in the area were deeper than the 30’ cut that would be made. He continued that the deeper the wells the less potential impact was created. John Neville stated that he would be required by the State to perform pre-blast surveys and seismographs would be utilized during work.
Eileen Mahoney asked how the property would be lit. Earl Sandford, P.E., answered that the proposed plan included three down facing lights on each side of the building. He pointed out that the lower the building the less light pollution would be created.
Eileen Mahoney advised that during the previous blasting operation a cloud of dust had covered the abutting properties and due to the dust her home required power washing. She asked if the abutters would be compensated for any damage that occurs. Earl Sandford, P.E., answered that compensation for damage would be a question for an insurance provider. He added that there was an obligation on the part of the applicant not to damage abutting property.
Eileen Mahoney questioned if the project could be stopped in the event that the applicant fulfilled all of the requirements to proceed with the proposed construction. Mark Suennen answered that the project could be stopped. Eileen Mahoney asked whether or not attorneys needed to be contacted or would the Board be willing to give guidance on the matter. Mark Suennen answered that abutters could make the choice to contact attorneys but the Planning Board was not in the position to give legal advice. Douglas Hill stated that the Board would take under consideration the impact to the abutters during the site plan review and noted that the Board had to consider the plan in terms of having a commercial site abutting residential properties and what that meant to the abutters as well as balancing all the
legal rights of a landowner in the commercial district.
Ron Perry of 104 Whipplewill Road stated that he had closely abutted the property for eighteen years and had never had an issue with dust or noise from the applicant’s property.
The Chairman advised the abutters that they would not be receiving notices for future hearings on this matter and they would need to keep track of the hearings either through the Town website or by reviewing the meeting agendas that are posted at the Town Hall.
The Board scheduled a site walk for September 16, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. The Chairman noted that abutters would need to receive permission from the landowners as to whether they could attend the site walk.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of John & Denise M. Neville, Location: Whipplewill Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/63-24, Commercial “Com” District, to September 28, 2010 at 8:00 p.m. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 24, 2010
1. Application for Appointment received August 16, 2010, for Matthew R. Beaulieu, CIP Committee, for the Board’s action.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to approve the appointment of Matthew R. Beaulieu to the CIP Committee. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Application for Appointment received March 04, 2010, for Frederick R. Hayes, Jr., CIP
Committee, for the Board’s action.
Mark Suennen MOVED to approve the Appointment of Frederick R. Hayes, Jr. to the CIP Committee. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Application for Appointment received August 5, 2010, for Alfred M. Pineault, Sign Committee, for the Board’s action.
Mark Suennen MOVED to approve the Appointment of Alfred M. Pineault to the Sign Committee. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
4a. Distribution of Driveway Permits for Emile Bussiere, Jr., SIB Trust, Susan and Indian Falls Roads, for the Board’s approval at the September 14, 2010, meeting.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
4b. Schedule a site walk for Emile Bussiere, Jr., SIB Trust, Driveways, Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/93-38 thru 45, Susan Road and 12/88 thru 12/88-12, 12/89 and 12/89-16 thru 22, Indian Falls Road.
The Board scheduled a site walk in the above-referenced matter for Saturday, September 11, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
5a. Email received August 19, 2010, from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Amendment to AOT Permits by Thibeault for SIB Trust, Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/88, 89 and 12/93-38, Susan and Indian Falls Roads, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
5b. Copies of Amended AOT Permits for Indian Falls and Susan Roads, SIB Trust & Jacqueline M. Bussiere, et al, Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/88, 89 and 12/93-38, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
7. Letter dated August 9, 2010, from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, New Boston Planning Coordinator, re: Indian Falls and Susan Road Connection/Bussiere-Invoice, Technical Review Breakdown, for the Board’s
information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
8. Memorandum dated August 6, 2010, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission and Stuart Lewin, Planning Board, re: Conservation Commission Membership on Planning Board, for the Board’s information.
Douglas Hill asked for further explanation of the above-referenced matter. The Chairman explained that the Conservation Commission believed that they had the right to have permanent member on the Planning Board. He noted that the matter was brought before the Board of Selectmen. He also indicated that the Coordinator had researched the matter and found contrary information.
9. Memorandum dated August 16, 2010, from David J. Preece, AICP, SNHCP Executive Director, to Planning Board, re: Meeting the Workforce Challenge, for the Board’s information. (CD available in office)
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
10. Notice of Fall Law Lecture Series
The Coordinator stated that members should advise the Planning Office of interest in attending any of the above-referenced lectures.
6. Discussion, re: Bilodeau Firewood Business, Joe English Road.
Mark Suennen stated that he had driven by the Bilodeau residence in July and there continued to be a significant pile of wood. Douglas Hill asked about the status of the front pile.
Mark Suennen indicated that the pile of wood in the front of the property appeared to be two organized cords.
The Chairman noted that two abatements had been approved as a result of the above referenced business and the Board of Selectmen had sent a letter to the Planning Board asking for a resolution. He stated that the Board had to determine whether they were willing to revoke the site plan; request that Mr. Bilodeau appear before the Board and advise of what changes needed to be made in order to continue on with the business; advise Selectmen that the Planning Board should not have approved the site plan and have them shut down the business; or, take no action.
The Chairman was not in favor of requesting Mr. Bilodeau to appear before the Board as historically it had proved to be unproductive as it was clear that the applicant and the Planning Board did not agree to the same thing.~
Discussion took place regarding Town Counsel having pointed out to the Board that a Residential-Agricultural lot can only have one principal use according to the Zoning Ordinance, and the cordwood business being approved as "Agriculture" on the same lot as an existing residential use did not follow the Zoning Ordinance's requirements.~ The Board agreed that asking Mr. Bilodeau to come back to speak with the Board would not accomplish anything.
Mark Suennen MOVED to appeal to the Board of Selectmen to consider the issue of the Bilodeau cordwood business with respect to Town Ordinances. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion. AYE – Dean Mehlhorn, Mark Suennen, and Douglas Hill.~ NAY – Rodney Towne. The motion PASSED.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
| 
