The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Peter Hogan and Mark Suennen, 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 was Dwight Lovejoy, Selectman, Morgan Hollis, Esq., Dana Lorden, Shiv Shrestha, Brandy Mitroff, Brian Roy, P.E., Willard Dodge, Michael Boyle, Tom Carr, CWS, Donna Mombourquette, Ian McSweeney, Gordon Russell, Jay Marden, Charles Cleary, Esq., Jason & Jennifer Martel, and Ken Lombard, Open Space Committee.
Discussion, re: Planning Board Goals
Present in the audience were Dwight Lovejoy, Selectman, and Morgan Hollis, Esq.
The Chairman noted that this evening’s discussion of the Planning Board goals was a continuation of the previous meeting. He asked if any updates were available from the Conservation Commission with regard to the potential funding for the Water Resources Management Plan. The Coordinator advised that the she did not have any updates available as the Conservation Commission was not scheduled to meet until the first Thursday in November. The Chairman asked if any Board members believed that the previously submitted suggestions from the Workforce Housing/Multi-Family Committee should be considered again. It was Mark Suennen’s opinion that the Board should not consider any suggestions relative to rezoning and/or setback changes. He explained that other of the suggestions from the committee might be
doable, noting, for instance, "Consider allowing multi-family residential development in the Small Scale Planned Commercial District; Delete requirement for Manufactured Housing Parks (MHP) parking spaces to be paved; Delete requirement for paved walkways in Manufactured Housing Parks; Consider allowing multi-family dwellings in Open Space Subdivisions; Review the (15) acre minimum tract size (for possible reduction) for Open Space Subdivisions.". The Chairman asked if there were any other topics that should be added to the suggestions. Peter Hogan stated that Mark Suennen's list sounded agreeable to him.
Mark Suennen stated in support of his suggestions that there were only one or two parcels in town that were still zoned Manufactured Housing Park so the proposed changes would not affect much land. He did not see why parking spaces and walkways should be paved in this district when it was not required elsewhere. He noted that paved parking spaces were not required in Open Space Subdivisions, for example. The Chairman asked for clarification purposes that not requiring paved walkways would be the difference between sidewalks with curbs versus a path in the grass. Mark Suennen stated that developments would have to meet ADA requirements however a path was provided. The Coordinator pointed out that the Town's preference for drainage was open drainage rather than sidewalks and curbs with the associated
structures. Rodney Towne suggested that in a Manufactured Housing Park most of the driveway would be covered by the Town's paved apron requirement. Peter Hogan asked if there were any MHP lots left. Mark Suennen said that the Twin Bridge land on Twin Bridge Road was the last parcel and that was being developed under the R-1 requirements for single family dwellings. He noted that someone could propose future rezoning to MHP if they so chose. Mark Suennen thought that these proposed amendments were relatively innocuous. The Coordinator suggested that since there was no land left zoned MHP the better course of action might be to leave these things alone. The Chairman asked the Board to think about whether or not to suggest these changes on the ballot and be ready to discuss them at the next meeting. He noted that he did not like to propose changes to the Zoning Ordinance without having at least a couple of weeks to think about the
suggestions.
Mark Suennen said that the other things he thought could be accomplished included changing the minimum lot size for Open Space Subdivision which was currently 15 acres. He wondered if there should be a minimum lot size and if so was 15 acres the right number. The Chairman thought that with the minimum lot size within an Open Space Subdivision allowed to be one acre and bearing in mind the type of land that was in New Boston it was unlikely that there would be an Open Space Subdivision on a 15 acre parcel that was able to achieve 15 individual lots. Mark Suennen said that the Workforce Housing Committee did not know why the 15 acres was in place and thought that it was possible that a 10 acre parcel might be very well suited to an Open Space Subdivision. Rodney Towne did not think that anything less than 15 acres
could provide appreciable open space for corridors or wildlife protection. Peter Hogan thought that 15 acres seemed small. He thought it would have to be a unique piece of land to make an Open Space Subdivision fly in the first place. The Chairman noted that this discussion did not seem to be controversial but there was not consensus.
The next suggestion was allowing multi-family dwellings in Open Space Subdivisions. Rodney Towne thought that this type of suggestion would lead to the land not being able to support separate septics and wells for the dwellings. He thought that a subdivision might be approved with separate facilities but over time the land would not be able to sustain them. Mark Suennen asked if Rodney Towne would be against community septic systems. Rodney Towne stated that they were a bad idea. Peter Hogan agreed, noting that on small lots there was limited area for relocating or expanding systems that were having problems. Mark Suennen stated that he would not argue the point.
The Chairman asked if there were any other comments to discuss; there were no further comments. The Chairman stated that the Board would vote on this matter at the next meeting.
FREDERICK K. LORDEN REVOCABLE TRUST (OWNER)
HARVEY J. DUPUIS FAMILY TRUST (OWNER)
SHIV K. SHRESTHA (APPLICANT)
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/42 Lots w/open space
Location: McCurdy Road & Susan Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 12/96 & 12/93-34
Present in the audience were Morgan Hollis, Esq., Dwight Lovejoy, Selectman, Dana Lorden, Shiv Shrestha, Brandy Mitroff, Brian Roy, P.E., and Willard Dodge.
The Chairman stated that the application was determined to be complete on August 24, 2010, with a deadline for Board action on October 28, 2010. He noted that if the application was not approved at this meeting an extension would be needed. He stated that the Board had received a letter dated October 19, 2010, that requested a waiver for showing the Suitable Building Envelopes on the Topographic and Site Specific Soils Plans, rather than showing them on the Stormwater Management and Phasing Plan. He added that no revised plans had been submitted.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that at the last meeting a handful of items had been unresolved, specifically, four items that needed the attention of the Road Committee. He also indicated that item #16 of the letter dated September 28, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering with regard a question of lot #19/19’s viability needed to be addressed. He noted that the well in question had been moved to the other side of the easement area but this had not been reflected on the State Subdivision Approval plan. The Chairman verified that the easement still bisected the lot. Brian Roy, PE, stated that it did. He pointed out that the well was shown on the other side of the easement on the State Subdivision Approval plan and on this side of the easement on the Stormwater Management Plan. He went on to say that the
Town Engineer had requested that the access driveway to the detention pond be moved to its current location from its original location which was on the lot line between Lot #19 and #20. Peter Hogan asked how big the pipe was that would be running under the driveway to the house, expressing his concern that if the pipe had to be fixed it would mean digging up the driveway. Brian Roy, PE, stated that an easement to allow work on the drainage area extended 10' beyond the pipe and if work was needed on the pipe there would still be enough room to maintain access to the garage on the property. He noted that normally pipe does not go bad unless it was badly installed in the first place. He further noted that it was proposed to be HDPE pipe with tight joints that would not see a lot of flow anyway.
Peter Hogan asked for confirmation that the Town Engineer had made the designer move the location of the access driveway. Brian Roy, PE, said that was the case, noting that the original location had the pipe installed in a 20' cut which would have required the pipe to be 15 - 16' deep. He noted that the Town Engineer was concerned with long term maintenance and pressure on the pipe and so on. Peter Hogan asked if Brian Roy, PE, agreed with the change of location. Brian Roy, PE, said that he did not but added that there was no real advantage or disadvantage one way or the other. He noted that either way the wetlands were avoided and the drainage made its way to the open swale in the back. He noted that pipe like this was generally not a maintenance issue.
The Chairman asked about access to the detention structure. Brian Roy, PE, indicated on the plan where the 10' wide gravel access driveway would be constructed through the property. He noted that it would be used by trucks and equipment for regular maintenance. Peter Hogan said that in the original location the access driveway would have had no impact on the regular house driveway. Brian Roy, PE, said there was no guarantee that maintenance on the pipe could avoid impacting the driveway to the house. He went on to say that there was no guarantee that the house on this lot would be constructed exactly where it was currently shown on the Stormwater Management Plan. He noted that the well location may change and further noted that the plan currently showed the worst case scenario with the house in back
and the driveway running parallel to the easement access driveway.
Dwight Lovejoy stated that he had spoken with someone about the need for through access roads or turnarounds to get equipment in and out of these easement areas. Brian Roy, PE, noted that this location would require a turnaround of some description but there was another easement location that could use a through access road.
The Chairman asked the Board for their thoughts on the easement access road location. Mark Suennen stated that he would not argue with the Town Engineer about the location. He could see why a 16 - 20' cut for the pipe would be of concern. Brian Roy, PE, said again that with no distinct pro or con for either location he went with the Town Engineer's request. Rodney Towne stated that he was all set with the proposed location. Peter Hogan was concerned with the future potential cost of digging up a property owner's driveway while trying to fix the pipe in the easement area. He noted that it would end up being the Town's responsibility to repave the driveway which would be more expensive. Mark Suennen countered that digging up a pipe 16' deep would require an open trench to get in to fix a section of
pipe. He thought that it would be cheaper to repair a driveway than dig such a trench through someone's front yard. He noted that ultimately the best place for the easement access would be right through the middle of the lot.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., went through the remaining items from the memo the Town Engineer had sent to the Acting Road Agent/Road Committee. He noted #48, of the letter dated September 28, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering and read the following: “In the past the Highway Department has preferred a headwall within cul-de-sac islands rather than super elevation. This allows for gradual slopes towards the inlet and places the inlet away from the travel-way. We are awaiting input from the Town on this matter. (See comment 107.)”. Dwight Lovejoy indicated that the Town did not want any super elevation.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., went on to #83 of the September 28, 2010, Northpoint letter regarding the need for loam and seed on the gravel access roads to the easement areas. Dwight Lovejoy said that he had not addressed this. The Chairman noted that the copy of the memo in the file indicated in a handwritten note that loam would not be required on these access roads.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., moved on to #94 regarding special improvements such as large culverts or retaining walls requiring engineering at this time. He noted that the Town Engineer had offered that the engineering for these structures could be done prior to the preconstruction meeting for the phase of the subdivision that they would be in and the applicant was agreeable to that suggestion.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., noted that this was everything on the checklist. He noted that the Planning Board had also mentioned offsite road improvements, there was the issue of a cistern versus a cistern and sprinklers, and the conservation easement that would require review by the Conservation Commission and Piscataquog Land Conservancy (PLC). The Coordinator asked if Morgan Hollis, Esq., would like the legal documents reviewed by Town Counsel prior to input from the Conservation Commission and PLC. Morgan Hollis, Esq., indicated that he would like the documents sent to Town Counsel.
The Chairman noted that the bond amount for the subdivision appeared to be for the entire project and noted that if the idea was to bond in phases, then separate bond worksheets should be submitted.
The Chairman asked about Lot #12/19-44 and a question as to whether the well location met the zoning requirement. The Coordinator clarified that the question was whether the contiguous dryland as required by the Wetlands and Stream Corridor Conservation District was accurate. Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that the engineer would review and certify that.
The Chairman moved on to the discussion cisterns and sprinklers, noting that the Fire Wards were requesting an additional 10,000 gallon cistern in addition to the proposed sprinkler systems for the reasons specified in their memo: number of outbuildings, wildland/urban interface, distance from the main fire station, and density of the development. He noted that the Board needed to decide whether or not to make this request a requirement of the subdivision approval. He further noted that this had been discussed at the last meeting and needed to be closed at this meeting. Peter Hogan asked where the cistern was proposed to be located. The Chairman said that there was no specified location at this time. Peter Hogan was interested in where it would be placed for the maximum benefit. The Chairman
asked the design engineer where he would place the cistern. Brian Roy, PE, said that he would ideally place the cistern in the middle of the development, at the top of the hill with an easement on a lot for it to be situated on. Mark Suennen thought that the area that made the most sense was by Lot #19-24. Morgan Hollis, Esq., said that the applicant had endeavored to follow the Fire Department's requirements in designing the subdivision. He did not think this requirement for the additional cistern had been imposed on other developments of a similar nature. He did not think the reasons expressed for requesting the cistern were fair and reasonable. Morgan Hollis, Esq., said that the lots were not miniscule lots, that there were outbuildings on property throughout the town. He also said that if the open space were to catch fire, 10,000 gallons was not going to be enough to help that situation. He noted that the distance to the fire
station was perhaps valid but that was a fair statement about a lot of places in New Boston. He noted that the applicant had chosen to use sprinklers instead of a large cistern and he did not think that this subdivision had an unusual conditions.
Rodney Towne stated that he found the Fire Wards' request reasonably justified. He noted that this subdivision had a lot of stuff jammed in close and that a 10,000 gallon cistern provided 10 loads of water for emergency vehicles which would make a difference to a wildfire situation. He said that he would place it somewhere in the location of the cul-de-sac intersection for operational purposes.
Peter Hogan said that he did not see anything extraordinary about this subdivision in any way. His recollection of what would constitute requiring the additional cistern under the regulations was not met.
Mark Suennen said that he was leaning towards not requiring the smaller cistern. He said that the houses would be sprinkled, the area was wet and although he was not a professional firefighter he did not think it was necessary.
The Chairman stated that he did not see anything particularly special about this situation and it was not clear to him that in similar situations the Board had done the same thing. He noted that there was a large subdivision nearby was sprinklered and he would tend to lean towards not requiring the cistern.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept the proposal from the applicant for sprinklers only in the Forest View II subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #12/19, 12/96 and 12/93-38, McCurdy Road, based on the previous discussion this evening. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED with Rodney Towne voting NAY and Mark Suennen and Peter Hogan voting AYE.
The Chairman stated that there was one waiver outstanding with regard to the runoff increase requested. He noted that the Town Engineer required some additional information prior to recommending that the Planning Board grant the waiver or not. Peter Hogan asked for some explanation of this issue. Brian Roy, PE, stated that the undulating land of the subdivision meant that runoff went in various directions. He was requesting a waiver in two locations: a minor increase on the south side of the property where 1 ½ lots would increase the flow in the 50 year storm by 0.25 cfs or what he would describe as a trickle. He noted that the only way to avoid the flow offsite would be to construct a detention basin. He further noted that the runoff was headed towards undeveloped land and Shaky Pond.
Brian Roy, PE, went on to say that AoT had already approved the increase. The second minor increase was in the north east of the property, again from two lots on McCurdy Road to the point of study on Carriage Lane. He noted that the drainage calculations showed a decrease of 10 or 12 cfs total downstream but this location was a minor local increase. Rodney Towne asked if the proposed increased runoff to the south would affect any property owner in that location's ability to develop in the future. Brian Roy, PE, said that the amount was insignificant and the direction unchanged. He noted that the land in question was not under easement. He went on to say that the Town Engineer had requested further drainage calculations to prove that there would be no impact to the abutters from the minor increase.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., noted a waiver request with regard to showing Suitable Building Envelope lines on the plans. The Chairman noted that the waiver was to showing the lines on the subdivision plans because they were shown on the Stormwater Management Plans. Brian Roy, PE, explained that technically the lines were shown on the plans but could not be seen due to the other lines in the same location, i.e. setbacks and soil lines. He noted that the Suitable Building Envelopes could be shown in a fatter gray to have them show up more easily. He pointed out the problem on the plans. The Chairman asked Brian Roy, PE, to bring one plan to the next meeting to show how his effort to make the lines legible had worked out. He noted that the Board could consider the waiver once they had seen whether or not
changing the line design had worked.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that the applicant was ready to go with the final plans and have them reviewed by the relevant parties. He asked about the timing of the next meetings and suggested coming back on November 23rd.
Brandy Mitroff asked if the Board had resolved the issue of the temporary cul-de-sac. The Chairman and Brian Roy, PE, both noted that the plans would contain a note requiring base coat and other safety features on Susan and Indian Falls Roads before certificates of occupancy would be issued on Lorden Road.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that the applicant would like to be adjourned to November 23, 2010, and that he agreed to an extension to the Board's statutory timeframe for action on the application.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the public hearing of Frederick K. Lorden Revocable Trust (Owner), Harvey J. Dupuis Family Trust (Owner), S & R Holdings, LLC (Applicant), Location: McCurdy & Susan Roads, Tax Map/Lot #12/19, 96 & 93-34, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, and to extend the deadline for Board action to November 23, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
BOYLE, MICHAEL J. & JANIE A.
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Home Shop
Location: 45 Barss Drive
Tax Map/Lot #14/56-7
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Present in the audience were Michael Boyle, Willard Dodge, and Brandy Mitroff.
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. He advised that the application and plans were approved with conditions on September 14, 2010, with a deadline for compliance of November 14, 2010. He continued that revised plans had been submitted on September 22, 2010, and a site walk was held on October 14, 2010. Mark Suennen stated that he had attended the site walk and everything was in place.
Mark Suennen MOVED to confirm that Michael and Janie Boyle have complied with the Conditions Subsequent to the approval of the site plan to operate a home shop from 45 Barss Drive, Tax Map/Lot #14/56-7, and to release the hold on the Permit to Operate/ Certificate of Occupancy to be issued by the Building Department. It is the applicant’s responsibility to apply to the Building Department for a Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
NEVILLE, DENISE M. & JOHN E.
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
Present in the audience were Willard Dodge, Brandy Mitroff, and Tom Carr, CWS.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice and noted that the applicant had requested a postponement of the above-referenced work session via email dated October 13, 2010, from Earl Sandford, PE/LLS. He explained that the applicant was still trying to meet with the abutters. He noted that three letters from abutters and one letter from Jed Callen, Esq., had been received.
The Coordinator indicated that Jed Callen, Esq., was interested in the letter dated October 25, 2010, from Town Counsel in response to his letter to the Board, and that the Board could consider releasing the letter.
The Board took a ten minute recess to review the letter dated October 25, 2010, from Town Counsel.
Mark Suennen MOVED to release the letter from Town Counsel dated October 25, 2010, to the general public and anyone else who requests it. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mark Suennen commented with regard to the most recent letter received from Attorney Callen that it was not the intention of the Board to prohibit personal testimony regarding the site plan and that abutters or interested parties could make submissions at anytime.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the work session of Neville, Denise M. & John E.,
Location: Whipplewill Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/63-24, to November 23, 2010, at 8:00 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF October 26, 2010
1.Approval of minutes of September 28, 2010, distributed by email.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the meeting minutes of September 28, 2010, as written. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. Piscataquog River Local Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes, from October 11, 2010.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
7. Email received October 21, 2010, from Douglas Hill, to Planning Department, re: resignation from the Planning Board, for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator advised that advertisements to fill the vacancy on the Board had been posted.
The Board would send Douglas Hill a thank you note for the time he served on the Planning Board.
8. READ FILE: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Merrimack, re: installation of a telecommunication cell tower.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
12. Distribution of the October 12, 2010, meeting minutes via email for approval at the
meeting of November 9, 2010.
8. Daily Road inspection reports dated, September 9, 10, and 13, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: SHB Properties, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
10. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Townes Family Trust, South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot # 13/37, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman noted that the above-referenced endorsement would be executed at the close of the meeting.
2. Schedule a Compliance Hearing for Susana LeClair Revocable Trust/CUP, Wilson Hill & Bedford Roads, Tax Map/Lot #9/24-12 & 13.
The Board reviewed photographs that the applicant had submitted on October 26, 2010, of the completed work and grass growth. The Chairman noted that Board members could go to the property for further review. A Compliance Hearing was scheduled for November 9, 2010, at 7:30 p.m.
3. Schedule a Compliance Site Walk for Thomas Lorden/AT&T, Tax Map/Lot #8/132, Old Old Coach Road.
A Compliance Site Walk was scheduled for Saturday, November 6, 2010, at 8:00 a.m.
5. Memo dated October 20, 2010, from Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, to New Boston Planning Board, re: William Boisvert, Gravel Operation/Helena Drive, Tax Map/Lot #3/7-1, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman stated that, according to the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Official, the above-referenced gravel operation had been closed and adequately reclaimed. Rodney Towne commented that action by the Board was not necessary. The Chairman requested that Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, be informed that the Board was satisfied with the closing of the gravel operation.
9. Discussion, re: Meeting with the Board of Selectmen regarding Cul-de-Sacs.
The Chairman advised that the above-referenced meeting had been scheduled for November 22, 2010, at 6:30 p.m., at the Whipple Free Library. He noted that a request for a trained facilitator had been made in an effort for the discussion to move forward with progress. The Coordinator stated that she had been informed by the Town Administrator that the Selectmen approved of the use of the facilitator, Charlie French, from UNH Cooperative Extension.
Mark Suennen suggested that it be noted at the beginning of the meeting that discussion of pending applications was not permissible. The Chairman asked to enumerate pending subdivision applications that should not be discussed. Mark Suennen answered Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, Subdivision and the Forest View Subdivision.
Peter Hogan asked if the Board had requested that the Technical Review Committee provide rationales for their position at the meeting. The Chairman answered that the Fire and Police Departments had been fairly clear on their positions at the April 15, 2010, Planning Board meeting, with regard to safety. He noted also that the School had been concerned with school bus access. The Conservation Commission agreed through Chairman Burr Tupper with the Fire and Police Departments and the Highway Department agreed with a follow up letter from the Road Committee listing their reasons for not supporting long cul-de-sacs.
Peter Hogan thought that finding outside experts to refute or support the claims of the town's departments was important.
Brandy Mitroff commented that the Office of State Planning’s website contained a number of articles that talked directly to the maximum lengths of cul-de-sacs. She stated that the maximum lengths provided were not arbitrary and were used nationally. She continued that the Coordinator had pointed out on two occasions that the Town’s Regulations did not encourage cul-de-sacs. The Chairman stated that he was not interested in conducting the meeting this evening. Brandy Mitroff urged the Board to attend the November 22, 2010, Selectmen’s meeting with open minds. The Chairman asked the Board to attend the meeting with open minds.
Peter Hogan asked for the web address for the State Planning’s website. The Coordinator advised that she would get the Board the web address.
The Chairman pointed out that some of the articles on the OEP website were 25 years old. Brandy Mitroff asked why the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission had not been contacted for more current information. The Chairman asked the Coordinator to contact the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission and the Office of Energy and Planning to determine whether additional information regarding cul-de-sacs was available. The Chairman reiterated his request that the Board members attend the Selectmen’s meeting with open minds.
11. Memo dated October 22, 2010, from the Planning Coordinator to the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen, re: Earth Removal Permitting Process History, with attached documents, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman noted that the memo indicated that the Regulations were being updated to fix who was responsible for earth removal operations and that the Town had not been following the correct procedures before. He noted that the regulations were trying to establish a one-time only permitting process with an indefinite permit that would require only one public hearing. He went on to say that the Coordinator had been working on the application forms. The Coordinator took a few minutes to run through the various application forms and checklists before the Board and asked that the Board review them and let her know of any changes that should be made.
Rodney Towne requested that a draft of the Earth Removal Regulations be provided to Dwight Lovejoy, Selectman.
The Chairman asked for further questions or comments; there were no further questions or comments.
The Board took a five minute recess prior to the start of the next hearing.
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
Present in the audience were Tom Carr, CWS, Donna Mombourquette, Ian McSweeney, Gordon Russell, Jay Marden, Charles Cleary, Esq., Jason & Jennifer Martel, Ken Lombard, Open Space Committee, Brandy Mitroff, and Willard Dodge.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He stated that the application had been accepted as complete on March 23, 2010, and the deadline for Board action was May 27, 2010. He noted that if the applicant was not approved this evening, a further extension was required. He advised that the Groundwater Resource Conservation District Conditional Use Permit application was submitted on October 19, 2010. He noted that no revised plans had been submitted. He went on to say that the Board need to discuss the amount of material that was proposed to be removed from the site and also noted that revised legal documents would be needed for Town Counsel to review.
Tom Carr, CWS, stated that six weeks ago he had discussed the second road length waiver for Walker Way with the Board. He stated that at that meeting the road length waiver had become a non-vote with three abstentions and outcry from the Town. He stated that following the meeting the portion of Walker Way that was in question had been revised and the proposed cul-de-sac was removed. He went on to say in the area of the previous cul-de-sac there would be five lots each with 150' or more of frontage, two of which driveway would be long. He noted that this was two less lots in this area as opposed to the cul-de-sac design. Tom Carr, CWS, went on to say that the subdivision overall had given up six lots on the maximum density allowed by ordinance. He noted that the Board had not been provided revised plans
as he continued to address comments from Northpoint Engineering. He asked for comments or questions from the Board.
Peter Hogan stated that one of the backlots appeared to be stacked. Tom Carr, CWS, stated that the lot that Peter Hogan was referring to was not a back lot and had 150’ of frontage according to the R-1 Zoning District. Peter Hogan inquired about the length of the driveways for the lots in question. Tom Carr, CWS, advised that the driveway length was between 500’ and 675’.
Mark Suennen asked if proposed lot #2/62-12-3 still existed on the revised plan. Tom Carr, CWS, answered yes.
Tom Carr, CWS, stated that he had submitted a Conditional Use Permit application for the Groundwater Resources Conservation District and noted that the removal of gravel would be incidental to construction of the subdivision. He noted that the site could not be balanced for cuts and fills and in order to keep the material out of the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act area and the open space, there was an excess of material to get rid of. He stated that there was approximately 60,000 yards excess. Tom Carr, CWS, went on to say that the CUP application mainly dealt with question #5, material removal as incidental to a residential subdivision. He noted that the removal would not be within 4' of the seasonal high water table and pointed out that the supplemental page of the application showed test pits in the
lowest spots on the property which were between 120" and 216" with no seasonal high water table. Tom Carr, CWS, pointed out that the test pits were in areas being filled. He went on to item 6a. on the application form, noting that no more than 30% of the lot would be rendered impervious, and that the calculation for each lot indicated that the highest amount of impervious surface on any lot would be 10%.
In response to item 6b. Tom Carr, CWS, noted that there would be no storage of petroleum products onsite during construction. He noted that D&S Excavating were slated to construct the road and they filled their equipment with a mobile tank in the back of a pick up.
Tom Carr, CWS, noted that item 6c. was answered by providing normal infiltration for stormwater onsite, and further noted that the AoT permit had been approved along with the required wetlands permits.
With regard to item 6d. Tom Carr, CWS, noted that there would be no storage, handling or use of regulated substances onsite.
In answer to the last question 6e. Tom Carr, CWS, said that a Stormwater Management Plan would be required for any lot with an impervious surface of the greater of 15% or 2,500 square feet. He noted that none of the lots had more than 10% of impervious surface. He also noted that a building restriction would be added to the lots so that no one could come in after the approval and grade the lot another way. He said that all slopes would be protected by the intended building envelope that would remain the same throughout the process.
The Chairman asked about the amount of material being removed from the lot and the plans for grading as questioned by Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering. Tom Carr, CWS, indicated that he was in the process of addressing these issues and was hoping to have final plans submitted to the Town Engineer by the end of the week.
The Chairman asked about the proposed phasing of the project. Tom Carr, CWS, noted that due to the removal of the cul-de-sac it was no longer necessary to phase the project.
The Chairman noted that there had been discussion at the last meeting with regard to overlapping well radii but no decision had been made.
The Chairman next mentioned the issue with cul-de-sacs and the Subdivision Regulations, Section IX-B. He noted that there was an issue with the frontage on West Lull Place and noted that it was not clear that the Board had stayed with what the regulations say. He said that the Board could reexamine what they did or at least discuss what was written in the regulations. He stated that a cul-de-sac should only have been granted if the applicants proved that they could not get a road through to West Lull Place. He said that by proving that they could get a through road they had shown that they did not need a cul-de-sac. Charles Cleary, Esq., said that he was confused. Tom Carr, CWS, said that the applicants had applied through the waiver process and proven the need for the preservation of land and river
frontage. The Chairman said that the question was to do with the Town's regulations and whether the Planning Board dealt with that correctly or not. He said it was an issue on the table.
Peter Hogan said that he would formalize what the discussion had always been. He noted that the Conservation Commission had requested a 100' setback in that location and the Board could look at the situation and determine that was a good thing which would make the Board's decision of no possibility of a through road correct. Tom Carr, CWS, said that he had heard that brought up at the Planning Board's meetings. Peter Hogan said that based on that fact (the 100' setback) there would be data and information showing that connection. Mark Suennen said that the question was that this would presuppose that the Board would have approved the 100' setback requirement and the justification for that would be the justification for the waiver being granted.
The Coordinator stated that she would like the Board to look at the wording of the Town's Zoning Ordinance and Floodplain Development Ordinance to verify that the establishment of a 100' setback in this location would, in fact, prohibit construction of a road. She noted that, depending on the definitions in each regulation, this may not be accurate. Tom Carr, CWS, asked if the Conservation Commission had requested a buffer or a setback. The Chairman noted that the request was for a setback.
Donna Mombourquette asked the Board to review RSA 155-E:4,IV,b,2, which stated that excavation required to put in a road within 50' of an abutter would not be allowed.
Jay Marden asked how much material had to be removed offsite. Tom Carr, CWS, stated 60,000 yards and noted that it had been offered to the Town. He noted that making road base material would need to be done elsewhere. Donna Mombourquette asked if an earth removal permit would be required to take the 60,000 yards. Peter Hogan said that no permit was required as it was incidental to construction. Donna Mombourquette asked if the town attorney had weighed in on this. The Chairman noted that the Board had been through this on a couple of applications. Jay Marden asked what the CUP was for. Tom Carr, CWS, noted that it was a Groundwater Resources Conservation District CUP which was primarily focused on water quality and preventing development from impacting the water negatively. He noted
that the 4' distance to seasonal high water was similar to AoT requirements and was intended to provide separation between surface and groundwater.
The Chairman stated that the applicant would be provided with a copy of a recent letter from Town Counsel that indicated the need for a Special Exception for earth material removal even when being removed as incidental to construction. He next noted that there was a question regarding the 200' square placement on Lot #2/62-12-6 but the lot had been reconfigured since the deletion of the cul-de-sac so this was moot. The Chairman asked Rodney Towne if the Selectmen were interested in the material being offered the Town. Rodney Towne said that they would have to look at it to see if there was a use for it.
The Chairman next asked if there had been resolution regarding the conservation easement. Ian McSweeney stated that the applicant had pursued having DRED hold the fee interest and submitted a letter stating their intent to do so. He noted that they had also met with the Open Space Committee. Ken Lombard stated that they had talked about the town holding the conservation easement or the PLC holding the easement. He said that they had to look at the land again to see if it met the criteria. The Chairman suggested that a decision on the easement would have to be made soon. Charles Cleary, Esq., said that once DRED held the fee they could decide at any future point in time who might hold an easement.
Jason Martel noted his concern with an easement near his driveway. He said that he thought an easement along the river was a good idea but did not want people crossing his land to get to the easement area. He asked why space could not be found in another location to provide access. He said it was unfair to him and his family to have the easement access provided over his land. Jason Martel stated that the cul-de-sac was a good idea and it made sense to protect 60 acres. He wondered why the best place for access to the easement area ended up being alongside his 220 year old house. He said he had a safety issue with hunters and walkers using his driveway already and thought the placement of the access in this area was ruining his property. He could not believe there was no better place to put the
access.
Peter Hogan referenced information provided to the Planning Board by the Coordinator: "The Town has yet to approve a subdivision with open space that provided access to anyone other than the residents of the subdivision. I am not aware that the Conservation Commission, DRED or the Russell Foundation are interested in establishing a parking lot or trailhead on West Lull Place with the associated maintenance and other concerns to allow public access to this area. The open space does not have to be open to the general public as part of an open space subdivision. Neighbors and others who have always walked the land will probably continue to do so.". He stated that originally no one had envisioned providing a public access point to the open space land. Willard Dodge stated that it would help
everyone continue this discussion if it were made clear where the town road started and stopped.
Tom Carr, CWS, pointed out that there was currently an easement over the Martel property and a subsequent easement could not supercede the rights of the Martel's to use and maintain their property and throw people off the land who should not be there. He suggested that Mr. Martel play an active role in developing the easement language so that restrictions could be written in. He knew that the area was one that people had not wanted to disturb and pointed out an old cellar hole on West Lull Place that had been reviewed as part of the archaeological survey of the property. Jason Martel stated that when the Lot Line Adjustment had first been mentioned there was public outcry. He thought that having him own the land with his driveway on it would protect the river in this location. He did not understand why it
was more important for the 200' of river to be owned by DRED rather than himself.
Donna Mombourquette said that she is the only person who remembers the beauty of the property as it was and sees the destruction of it that took place. She said there had been a change in the discussion of the use of the property bordering his property and the river. She said all previous conversation had been about conservation of the land and wildlife but now some behind the scenes discussions seemed to have turned to providing access to the land. She supported Mr. Martel.
The Chairman stated that none of the discussion regarding the open space or easements had been with the Planning Board. He noted that the developer had met with abutters and other organizations external to the Planning Board. He agreed that taking an active role in drafting the easement was important. The Chairman asked that the applicant come to a definitive answer on what kind of easement was being proposed so the Board could act on it. Brandy Mitroff agreed with Jason Martel and Donna Mombourquette that previous discussions were all about preserving the land so that it looked the same to people canoeing or kayaking on the river, not about providing trails and allowing people to walk the property. She said that the Lot Line Adjustment idea had blown apart because Peter Hogan had required that stretch of
frontage to prove a through road in that location. Peter Hogan asked what was required to have the Lot Line Adjustment happen. Tom Carr, CWS, stated that the application currently before the Board had not been noticed as involving a Lot Line Adjustment as well so it would have to proceed separately. The Chairman thought that working with the easement may get everyone what they were looking for. Tom Carr, CWS, stated that the applicant would do what the Planning Board wanted, however, his objective was to get the Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, application approved by the Board after the lengthy process it had been through. He noted in response to Peter Hogan that an application could be submitted for the Lot Line Adjustment to run concurrently with the pending application. Charles Cleary, Esq., said that everyone involved should discuss the idea.
The Board noted that there were two options in this area - come up with a mutually satisfactory easement or submit a Lot Line Adjustment application.
Tom Carr, CWS, stated that he would like to return to the CUP application that had been his primary focus for this evening's meeting. He noted that the wetlands CUP was also still pending. Willard Dodge said again that he would like to know the location of the town road. Tom Carr, CWS, pointed it out on the plan.
The Chairman dealt with the CUP applications. He noted that the wetlands CUP was usually done at the time of the subdivision approval because usually the bonding requirements were tied together. Tom Carr, CWS, stated that he had the Dredge and Fill Permit and did not think any issues would come up on the wetlands CUP. He was fine with waiting until the end of the process for an approval.
The Chairman asked if anything was missing for consideration of the Groundwater Resources Conservation District CUP. The Coordinator stated there was not.
Mark Suennen MOVED to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the Groundwater Resources Conservation District for Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 & 3/5 as submitted, as the answers to the questions given on the application form are acceptable to the Board. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Tom Carr, CWS, stated that the applicants would iron out what would happen regarding a Lot Line Adjustment. The Chairman noted that it was not clear that there was consensus from the Board on the easement versus the Lot Line Adjustment.
Tom Carr, CWS, asked that the application be tabled for one month, and the statutory deadline extended for the same time, so that he could finalize all revisions and resubmit the plans.
Mark Suennen commented that he disagreed with the comments made relative to the Fiscal Impact Study. Tom Carr, CWS, stated that Mark Fougere, AICP, had completed that Fiscal Impact Study and worked for both sides of the fence. He stated that if Board members had concerns with the Fiscal Impact Study they were welcome to contact Mark Fougere, AICP, directly. Mark Suennen noted that he was not interested in contacting Mark Fougere, ACIP, directly but thought that the Board needed to consider the comments.
The Chairman asked for any further questions or comments; there were no further questions or comments.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the public hearing of 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, and to extend the deadline for the Board's action on the application to November 23, 2010, at 9:00 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF October 26, 2010, Cont.
4. Discussion, re: RSA 674:39, “vesting” and existing previously approved subdivisions inNew Boston.
The Chairman asked if the above-referenced matter concerned the issue of what allowed subdivisions to claim they were grandfathered from changes to the regulations. The Coordinator answered yes. The Chairman stated that the Board had previously decided to review each subdivision on a case-by-case basis.
The Coordinator explained that Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer had questioned a lot with regard to which subdivisions would be subject to the wetland setback and through the research process she had identified subdivisions where approvals had been granted but no improvements had been made within the statutory timeframes for vesting. She questioned how the Board wanted to handle this issue.
Mark Suennen thought that the applicants should be told to reapply. It was determined that the Board would look at the plans for the two identified subdivisions at the next meeting and then decide what to do for those and the others that would be coming up in the future.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 10:46 p.m. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
| 
