The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Peter Hogan 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 Donna Mombourquette, Jay Marden, Tom Carr, CWS, Henry Kunhardt, P.E., Tris & Marcella Gordon, Bob & Carol Huettner, Charles Cleary, Esq., Brandy Mitroff, Ian McSweeney, Gordon Russell, Kris Stewart, Dennis McKenney, LLS, Charles & Lydia Peak, Michael Boyle, David Spain, Major Holbein, and Jeff Hudson.
Discussion, re: Planning Board Goals
The Chairman advised that the Board would be discussing the 2010 Planning Board goals. Present in the audience was Donna Mombourquette.
The Chairman stated that the Zoning Ordinance needed to be updated relative to the Small Scale Planned Commercial District. He asked the Coordinator if the Board had intentions of querying individuals with regard to previous Zoning Ordinance suggestions. The Coordinator answered that the Small Scale Planned Commercial District Sub-Committee had suggested rezoning the following parcels of land:
1. Tax Map/Lot #15/16 & 15/17 – Klondike Corner area
2. Tax Map/Lot #5/28, 5/21-2, 5/25 – NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road
3. Tax Map/Lot #8/106 & 8/107 – NH Route 13 South a/k/a Mont Vernon Road
She continued that the Board was going to consider the rezoning throughout the year. Mark Suennen added that the Board had previously decided to advise residential abutters that the Board was considering the rezoning. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the properties were currently zoned Residential-Agricultural, “R-A” District. The Coordinator answered any lots that were not zoned Commercial were zoned Residential-Agricultural, “R-A” District.
The Chairman acknowledged that the Small Scale Planned Commercial District Sub-Committee had made suggestions with regard to updating the parking and signage sections of the Zoning Ordinance. He questioned whether or not the Signage Sub-Committee would be addressing the aforementioned suggestions. The Coordinator answered that the Signage Committee would address the signage suggestions but not the parking suggestions.
The Chairman noted that the Water Resources Management Plan, (WRMP), needed to be updated. The Coordinator explained that the update could not be completed without the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, (SNHPC). She further explained that funding was required for the update and had not been obtained. She stated that the SNHPC was currently working on the Piscataquog Watershed Management Plan, (PWMP). She continued that the PWMP would be done in phases, with Phase I beginning on the west side of New Boston, and the information obtained may provide a partial update to the WRMP. She noted that the update would only be partial as the information was based on one section of the Town.
The Coordinator stated that if the Board felt strongly about the update a request to the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee should be made for a warrant article that would provide some funding. She pointed out that the WRMP was part of the Master Plan and had not been updated since its adoption in 1989. She continued that the issue of what each sub-watershed could handle relative to development had not been addressed since that time. The Chairman commented that a lot had changed over the last twenty years with regard to development in New Boston. He expressed concern that it may be difficult to obtain funding through a warrant article. Mark Suennen added that it may be difficult to describe that the Town was having a water shortage issue in light of the recent floods. Rodney Towne pointed out
that the WRMP addressed more issues than just water shortage. Mark Suennen commented that the reasoning for updating the WRMP was to prevent future water shortage. Rodney Towne asked the Coordinator if the WRMP pertained to groundwater issues. The Coordinator clarified that the WRMP encompassed all water resources. She explained that it touched upon surface water, i.e., ponds and rivers, but mainly focused on groundwater in terms of conservation and preservation.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she believed funding may be available in 2011. The Coordinator answered that she was unsure. She continued that she had never received an estimate for the cost of the update from the SNHPC but noted the process was comprehensive. The Chairman asked the Coordinator to contact the SNHCP and inquire about the cost of the update.
Mark Suennen stated that during the July 27, 2010, Planning Board meeting David Preece, Executive Director, SNHPC, had been present to discuss the Sustainable Communities Initiative. He continued that during the discussion David Preece, Executive Director, SNHPC, had mentioned the possibility of grants that were available relative to water and water resources. He asked if the Board had issued a letter in support of the Sustainable Communities Initiative; the Chairman confirmed that the Board had submitted such a letter. Mark Suennen questioned whether the Board should wait to find out if any funding was available through the Sustainable Communities Initiative. The Coordinator pointed out that in most instances grants through DES were matching grants, in which case some funding would still be necessary.
The Chairman noted that with regard to Workforce/Multi-Family Housing, the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, and the Site Plan Review Regulations needed to be updated. He stated that the Town had not adopted a Workforce Housing Overlay District and asked the Coordinator if she had any knowledge of how many other towns had adopted a Workforce Housing Overlay District. The Coordinator answered that she had not seen any information regarding the Chairman’s question; however, she noted that a guidebook that would assist towns with putting an ordinance in place was recently received. Mark Suennen asked if the Coordinator was aware of how many towns had been sued due to a lack of a Workforce Housing Overlay District. The Coordinator answered that she had not seen any information regarding Mark Suennen’s question.
The Chairman asked if a comparison should be conducted between the previous Workforce Housing Overlay District proposal and the guidebook that the Coordinator had mentioned. The Coordinator explained that the guidebook did not provide a model and only provided suggestions.
The Chairman advised that the Board should review the Housing and Conservation Planning Program’s application for ideas to update the Zoning Ordinance with regard to mixed use/village district zoning. The Coordinator pointed out that it would be too late in the year to address this issue.
The Coordinator informed the Board that she had spoken with Kevin Leonard, P.E., relative to updating the Stormwater Management Regulations in light of AOT Rules changes. She explained that no changes were necessary as the current Stormwater Management Regulations did not conflict with the new AOT Rules. The Chairman stated that no action was required but wanted to note that the matter was reviewed.
The Chairman noted that the Cistern Regulations needed to be updated to accommodate the Fire Wards’ decision to accept Michie Corp. pre-cast cisterns. The Coordinator advised that the Fire Wards’ were currently reviewing a draft of the revised Cistern Regulations with Kevin Leonard, P.E.
The Coordinator explained that the section of the Planning Board Goals entitled “Other Zoning Districts” always appeared on the goals as its purpose was to continually review the Master Plan's recommendations for future land use planning.
The Chairman asked if the next update to the Master Plan was due in 2011. The Coordinator answered that the Master Plan updating process should begin in 2011 if the Board deemed that updates were required. She added that census information should be available in 2011 and applicable statistical information should be updated. She further added that public input was necessary. The Chairman asked how often the Master Plan needed to be updated. The Coordinator answered that it was suggested that the Master Plan be updated every five years. The Chairman asked how to the Board would go about gathering public input. The Coordinator explained it seemed to work best to create a committee that would work on the Master Plan updates and then hold some type of community forum, i.e., a spaghetti dinner to
hold discussions and gather input and ideas. She noted that the New Boston Speaks Committee had been created to obtain public input. She stated that the SNHPC would be utilized to gather information for the Master Plan’s more technical updates. The Chairman asked if the SNHPC involvement in the updates was standard support or if it had costs associated with it. The Coordinator answered that some of the involvement may involve costs and it was important to start the discussion now for budgetary reasons.
The Coordinator advised that a sub-committee had been created to address updates to the Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Committee’s final meeting would take place next month. She stated that a draft of the updates would be available next month.
The Chairman asked for questions or comments from the Board regarding the 2010 Planning Board goals; there were none.
The Chairman asked for comments or questions on the revised Cistern Regulations. Dean Mehlhorn asked if either cast-in-place or pre-cast would be used. The Coordinator answered that cast-in-place, pre-cast, or fiberglass cisterns were allowable. She noted that this was the first time the pre-cast cisterns had been made an allowable option.
The Chairman asked if a consolidated version of the review Cistern Regulations could be made available rather than the one that showed all the changes that had been made. The Coordinator said she would ask Kevin Leonard, PE, to send a clean copy.
Peter Hogan asked who was choosing to build cisterns instead of installing sprinkler systems. Rodney Towne answered that a lot of people were choosing to install cisterns and that fire departments liked cisterns either in conjunction with or as an alternative to sprinklers. He noted that cisterns were important in some situations. Peter Hogan asked if it was Rodney Towne’s opinion that cisterns were preferable to sprinklers. Rodney Towne answered that he preferred a combination of cisterns and sprinkler systems. Peter Hogan asked if the Fire Wards’ wanted the Cistern Regulations to be changed to reflect a requirement to combine cisterns and sprinkler systems. He continued that such a change had not been represented to the Planning Board. Rodney Towne answered that he was unsure of the
Fire Wards’ intentions and that he could only speak for himself. He continued that sprinklers were similar to smoke detectors in that they were not intended to protect property. He explained that the purpose of cisterns and fire trucks were to protect property. It was Peter Hogan’s opinion that the Fire Wards’ had represented that sprinklers were to be installed as a life saving measure. Rodney Towne reiterated that sprinklers were similar to smoke detectors and were not used as fire suppression systems. He noted that residential sprinkler systems differed from commercial sprinkler systems as the main purpose was not to suppress fires. Peter Hogan commented that the Board had been told that sprinkler systems would help to minimize exposure of the Town’s volunteer fire department by providing that home fires would not be as involved as they would be without a sprinkler system. Rodney Towne agreed with Peter
Hogan’s statement.
The Chairman asked for clarification that it was Rodney Towne’s opinion that cisterns were useful or desired as additions to sprinkler systems but that sprinklers would always be the first choice. Rodney Towne clarified that sprinklers were the first choice because life safety was the number one issue. The Chairman asked if the Board wanted to submit comments to the Fire Wards’ or wait until after their review of the Cistern Regulations was completed. Peter Hogan believed that the Fire Wards’ should make a presentation to the Board with regard to the proposed changes. He continued that the reason he would like a presentation was because the current regulations provided for the installation of either a sprinkler system or a cistern and it may be less insulting to the Fire Wards’ if the
Cistern Regulations supported the preferred sprinkler and cistern combination. He added that it was important for potential developers to understand what the Town was requiring them to install. The Coordinator pointed out that thus far the only change that was being proposed was to incorporate the use of pre-cast cisterns with the required installation procedures. Peter Hogan stated that his previous comment regarding a presentation was based on requests made by the Fire Department that they would like both cisterns and sprinklers to be required for certain subdivisions and the Board should determine the support and/or opposition for such a requirement.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to inquire about possible requirements for both cisterns and sprinkler systems to the Fire Department as a separate issue.
The Coordinator asked the Board if there were any items that were listed as needing a Zoning Ordinance update that they wanted to try and still complete for the March 2011 ballot.
She advised that public hearings needed to be scheduled at the end of November in order to place the proposed updates on the ballot. The Chairman indicated the possible rezoning of three parcels of land suggested by the Small Scale Planned Commercial District Committee would need to be addressed for the March 2011 ballot. Peter Hogan asked if Board had intentions of advising the owners of the three parcels of land about the possible rezoning. The Chairman answered that the Board would advise the property owners following a determination by the Board of which parcels would be applicable. He continued that the Board members needed to give consideration to this issue, drive by the parcels in question and be prepared to make a decision on which parcels should be rezoned at the next meeting.
The Chairman noted that the Small Scale Planned Commercial District also suggested a Zoning Ordinance update to the parking requirements; he noted that the Board would discuss the three suggested updates at the next meeting.
The Chairman stated that the Board needed to review and discuss the Zoning Ordinance updates to the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing. He suggested proposing the previously failed Recommendation #1, Workforce Housing Overlay District. He asked the Coordinator if the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee had previously provided the Board with written justification for each of the proposed recommendations. The Coordinator answered that she believed there was more detailed information available; she agreed to provide the Board with the information by the end of the week. The Chairman asked the Board members to be prepared to discuss and vote on each recommendation. He asked the Coordinator to schedule this matter first on the next meeting’s agenda and invite the Committee members to attend.
The Chairman summarized that starting at 6:30 p.m. at the next meeting the following would be discussed in this order:
1. Workforce/Multi-Family Housing
2. Small Scale Planned Commercial District – Parcel Rezoning
3. Small Scale Planned Commercial District – Parking Issues
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if there was anything further the Board should
review with regard to updating the Master Plan. The Coordinator stated that she would provide the Board with information about which chapters should be updated.
The Chairman asked for further comments or questions; there were no further comments or questions.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2010
Present in the audience were Donna Mombourquette, Jay Marden, Tom Carr, CWS, Charles Cleary, Esq., Henry Kunhardt, P.E., Tris Gordon, Gordon Russell and Ian McSweeney.
4. Daily road inspection reports dated, June, July & August, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: SIB Trust, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
7. Memorandum dated September 1, 2010, from Shannon Silver, Planning Board Assistant, to Stuart Lewin, Planning Board Chairman, re: Start-Up of 2011-2016 Capital Improvements Plan Process, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
8. Driveway Permit from State of New Hampshire, DOT, to Town of New Boston, re: repave Meetinghouse Hill Road, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
9. Driveway Permit from State of New Hampshire, DOT, to Town of New Boston, re: repave South Hill Road, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
10. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the City of Nashua, re: installation of a wireless telecommunications facility.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussionoccurred.
12. Site Walk notes for SIB Trust, Susan & Indian Falls Roads, Saturday, September 11, 2010, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
13. Distribution of minutes of August 24, 2010, distributed by email, for approval at the meeting of September 28, 2010.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
15. Sign Committee meeting minutes from September 8, 2010, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
16. Letter received September 14, 2010, from Kevin Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, re: Twin Bridge Estates-Phase II-Technical Review Escrow, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to give an explanation of the above-referenced
matter. The Coordinator explained that due to the submission review cycles of the plan the
initial deposit was not sufficient and additional funds were requested.
17. Daily road inspections reports dated, August & September, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: SIB Trust, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussionoccurred.
1. Approval of minutes of July 27, 2010, distributed by email.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the meeting minutes of July 27, 2010, as written. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion. Peter Hogan, Dean Mehlhorn, Rodney Towne – AYE Mark Suennen – Abstained. The motion PASSED.
3. Discussion, re: reduction of Conditional Use Permit Escrow for SIB Trust, Emile Bussiere, Susan Road, for the Board’s action. (viewed crossing at SW of 09/11/10)
The Chairman explained that the above-referenced matter pertained to the wetland
crossing that was viewed during the Board’s most recent site walk. He stated that blasting had occurred the day before the site walk, creating a mess of the area. He noted that there were questions of whether some items matched the plan. He further noted that there was no evidence of stabilization.
Mark Suennen commented that if it were not for the blasting the Board could release
$10,000.00 - $15,000.00 or 60% -75% of the CUP bond. He was concerned, however, that future blasting may jeopardize any areas the Board approved.
Peter Hogan MOVED to deny the reduction of the Conditional Use Permit Escrow for SIB Trust, Emile Bussiere, Susan Road, noting that the applicant could ask again when the blasting was completed and stabilization was in place. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Board took a five minute recess prior to the next hearing.
The Chairman seated Dean Mehlhorn as a full voting member in Douglas Hill’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 Donna Mombourquette, Jay Marden, Tom Carr, CWS, Charles Cleary, Esq., Henry Kunhardt, P.E., Gordon Russell, Ian McSweeney, Tris & Marcella Gordon, Bob & Carol Huettner, and Brandy Mitroff.
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 a series of extensions had been made and if the application was not approved at this meeting an additional extension would be required. He stated that there had been recent correspondence that addressed review of the plans and questions relative to the CUP from the applicant’s attorney. He noted that the Board continued to wait for comments from the Town’s Engineer. He further noted that a site walk had taken place on April 17, 2010.
Tom Carr, CWS, stated that he was present to address two issues; the Walker Way
cul-de-sac road length waiver and the Groundwater Resources Conditional Use Permit. He explained that in a letter dated August 23, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering, it was suggested by Kevin Leonard, P.E., that Walker Way be addressed as a separate cul-de-sac length waiver. He continued that the subdivision was intended to be done in phases and Phase I would be constructed from Twin Bridge Road to sta. 16 + 50. Walker Way would eventually measure 595’ off Wright Avenue. He noted that he had created both temporary and permanent road length waiver requests.
The Chairman indicated that the Board would entertain the waiver requests and invited Tom Carr, CWS, to continue his reasoning for such requests. Tom Carr, CWS, stated that in consideration of Northpoint Engineering’s review he acknowledged the perspective that the inception of Walker Way may be at Twin Bridge Road, therefore, creating a longer temporary cul-de-sac. He continued that the road length waiver for Wright Avenue had been approved prior to the request to phase the subdivision and Walker Way would measure 2,095' if measured from Twin Bridge Road. He stated that the cul-de-sac length for Wright Avenue was a result of working in collaboration with the Russell Foundation, NH Fish and Game, the EPA and other environmental groups that considered the special environmental concerns of the property.
He noted that during the initial planning of the subdivision a proposal to connect Page Lane to Walker Way was not supported because the road would disturb an existing red maple swamp. He added that the Russell Foundation did not support connecting Page Lane to Walker Way. He noted that an additional complication existed with regard to the connection of Page Lane and Walker Way as a stipulation prohibited any further subdivision on Page Lane.
Tom Carr, CWS, invited questions from the Board. Mark Suennen commented that
Walker Way did not measure anything less than 1,500’. Tom Carr, CWS, agreed with Mark
Suennen’s statement and added that he understood Northpoint Engineering’s legitimate concern.
The Chairman asked for confirmation that Walker Way would measure 2,095' from Twin Bridge Road; Tom Carr, CSW, confirmed the Chairman’s statement.
The Chairman asked for further comments or questions from the Board and the audience;
there were no further comments or questions.
The Chairman advised that the Board needed to make a decision with regard to the road length waiver request. Peter Hogan indicated that he needed more time to consider the waiver. The Chairman stated that the Board would make a determination of the road length waiver request later in the meeting.
Tom Carr, CWS, stated that Charles Cleary, Esq., was present to address the remaining
Groundwater Resource Conditional Use Permit issue. Charles Cleary, Esq., explained that he was addressing an issue brought up by the Town Engineer, Kevin Leonard, P.E., with regard to a new groundwater protection zone ordinance. He continued that Kevin Leonard, P.E., had construed section G, 5, of the Groundwater Protection Ordinance to apply to the pending subdivision and require a Conditional Use Permit. He stated that after reviewing the ordinance it was his interpretation that the Town required a Conditional Use Permit for any sand or gravel excavation permitted in accordance with RSA 155, E. He further stated that earth removal as incidental to a permitted use was not allowable within four feet of a high water table. He explained that his interpretation was based on D, 9, of the Groundwater Protection
Ordinance, that allowed for earth removal as incidental to a permitted use. He advised that a 2007 court case had determined that municipalities could regulate RSA 155, E, regarding permitted excavations. He explained that anything that required a permit could be regulated by the Town; however, if State law did not require a permit, i.e., incidental to construction, the Town could not regulate it. He went on to say that the goal of the applicant was the subdivision, noting that multiple permits had been obtained as well as multiple hearings attended. He pointed out that the purpose of the gravel and sand removal was to facilitate the construction of the subdivision and as such the permits had previously been obtained. He further pointed out that the earth removal was not an excavation but rather incidental to a permitted use. He added that incidental under New Hampshire law meant subordinate to and was not the primary use of the plan.
The Chairman suggested that Town Counsel review the question regarding the Conditional Use Permit. Rodney Towne agreed that it was appropriate to have Town Counsel review the matter and commented that he agreed with Kevin Leonard, PE’s interpretation. Mark Suennen also agreed that Town Counsel should review the matter. He noted that he disagreed with Charles Cleary, Esq.’s, interpretation of section G, 5, of the Groundwater Protection Ordinance, with regard to its not requiring a Conditional Use Permit in this case. He wanted Town Counsel to be asked if the Board, as the Regulator, was permitted to require a Conditional Use Permit for incidental excavation. He believed that if the Town had not intended for incidental to construction to require a Conditional Use Permit it would not be covered
under the Groundwater Protection Ordinance, G, 5. Charles Cleary, Esq., added that it was important to differentiate between what the Zoning Ordinance was asking and what the Subdivision Regulations allowed. He continued that the Board could regulate the entire process, i.e., the subdivision and excavation; however, what the Board was requiring was an additional review and permit process that dealt exclusively with a certain type of excavation and that was prohibited. The Chairman noted that this matter would be reviewed by Town Counsel.
The Chairman stated that he wanted to address some outstanding issues. He asked if theapplicant intended on removing material from the lot. Tom Carr, CWS, answered that excess gravel would need to be removed from the site. He continued that the applicant was willing to gift the excess material to the Town’s Highway Department with the condition that the Town arranged to take the material using their own trucks.
The Chairman asked for a status update on the conservation easement deed. Tom Carr, CWS, advised that Ian McSweeney of the Russell Foundation was currently working with the State with regarding to granting the land to the Department of Resources and Economic Development, (DRED). Ian McSweeney added that final plans had been completed but DRED was interested in taking fee ownership of the land. The Chairman asked if DRED taking ownership of the land would be in lieu of the New Boston Conservation Commission doing so. Ian McSweeney explained that fee ownership by DRED offered additional protection for the conservation easement with the Town’s Conservation Commission. The Chairman asked for a representative of the Conservation Commission to offer their position on this matter; no one from the Conservation
Commission was present.
The Chairman asked if the Board had determined whether or not this subdivision posed regional impact. Mark Suennen believed the Board had not reached a determination on regional impact. It was Mark Suennen’s interpretation that the pure development did not meet the requirements for regional impact; however, the Traffic Impact Study recommended off site improvements to Route 114 in Weare and that would create a regional impact. He asked if the Town of Weare had expressed any interest in this matter. The Coordinator answered that a letter had been sent but no response had been received. The Chairman expressed his desire to make a determination on this matter. Mark Suennen questioned whether or not Page Lane had been deemed to have regional impact. The Coordinator answered that no formal
determination had been made. Mark Suennen pointed out that the Town of Weare had deemed a subdivision on Daniels Lake Road as having regional impact and had shared the information with the Board. The Board determined that the project did not pose a regional impact. Mark Suennen noted that should the recommendations of the Traffic Impact Study be followed, the modifications would occur in the Town of Weare. The Chairman advised that should conditions change the Board could revisit this issue.
The Chairman reiterated that the applicant intended on completing the subdivision in phases. Tom Carr, CWS, stated that the applicant did intend on phasing the project as Phase I from Twin Bridge Road to sta. 16+50 and Phase II the remainder of Wright Avenue. He pointed out the location of the proposed cistern as well as the existing cistern on the plan. The Chairman asked how far the cistern was past sta. 16+50. Tom Carr, CWS, explained that they had gone 150’ beyond that because it provided a storage area for construction equipment that was out of the way.
The Chairman asked for confirmation that the applicant planned on installing underground utilities. Tom Carr, CWS, answered confirmed that the applicant planned on installing underground utilities.
The Chairman asked if the applicant intended on using easements to resolve the issue of well radiuses crossing into adjacent lots. Tom Carr, CWS, advised that the issue had been discussed when the applicant was attempting to gain subdivision approval from NH DES Subsurface Bureau and he explained that Subsurface required either an easement or well release form in such situations. He went on to say that when Subsurface had recommended the applicant utilize easements the plan was still in its conceptual stages. When the applicant was developing the lots and the real well location was determined then well release forms could be used to allow for the well radiuses on the outside of the lots. The Chairman asked who was responsible for signing the well release form and at what point in the process it needed to be
signed. Tom Carr, CWS, answered that the well release forms were signed at the time of the septic system plan approval and the current owner of the property was responsible for signing. The Chairman pointed out that future owners may not be aware of the well release form and questioned why the applicant would not complete an easement. Tom Carr, CWS, stated that easements could be completed; however, this can become problematic if the neighboring lot is sold prior to recording the easement as the new owners may not be willing to grant same. Charles Cleary, Esq., added that the well release form could recorded or a requirement could be made that the well release form be referenced within the deed.
The Chairman asked how many lots had well radiuses that extended into the Town’s right-of-ways. Tom Carr, CWS, answered that there were about five or six lots on Tax Map/Lot #3/5 that had well radiuses that would extend into the Town’s right-of-way. He pointed out that although having well radiuses that extend into the right-of-way may not be preferable, it was allowable. The Chairman asked the Board for comments or questions. It was Rodney Towne’s opinion that the property had been overdeveloped if the well radiuses were crossing onto other pieces of property. He further commented that he did not believe it was acceptable not to complete easements for this matter. Peter Hogan agreed with Rodney Towne’s opinion. Tom Carr, CWS, stated that he was concerned that easements
may not be granted by future property owners, therefore, prohibiting the construction of wells. The Chairman stated that having the well release forms signed by the developer may meet the intent of the law but would not provide as much protection to the future property owner as an easement. Tom Carr, CWS, stated that he did not disagree with the Chairman’s statement; however, he believed that Charles Cleary, Esq.’s, suggestion of requiring the disclosure of the well release form in the deed was an excellent idea. Tom Carr, CWS, stated that the final layout of the septic systems usually did not require anywhere near the 4k area that the plans had to show to be approved by the State and that usually allowed the wells to be placed closer to the house and the septic area and the issue with radii may be moot at that point.
Peter Hogan commented that it did not change the fact that an easement would have to exist on someone else’s property in order to have a necessary part of the subdivision approval. He asked for the location of the lots in question to be identified on the plan. Tom Carr, CWS, pointed to the location of the following lots on the plan: #2/62-12-1, #3/5-17, and #3/5-3. Mark Suennen stated that the same issue existed with the conservation land that may be owned by DRED. Tom Carr, CWS, acknowledged Mark Suennen’s point but noted that the land in question was protected land and the intent of the well radius was not to place salt sheds, septic systems, or other pollutants within the protected well radius. He continued that because the land in question was in protected open space a well release form was
not required.
The Chairman asked Tom Carr, CWS, to explain the incorporation of a super elevated segment of road within the design and its location. Tom Carr, CWS, identified the location of the proposed super elevated segment of road on the plan and explained that because the location contained a high quality wetland a design was created to prohibit additional runoff. The Chairman asked the Coordinator to pass this information onto the Highway Department for review as it had not been previously reviewed by the Technical Review Committee. Mark Suennen added that the design appeared to be reasonable.
The Chairman referenced Kevin Leonard, PE's, question about how construction of the road on Lot 3/5 would be done tying in with the lot development. Tom Carr, CWS, stated that this was one part of the design that he did not like because it was confusing but he noted they were required to have a road design. He explained that the Town Engineer’s concern was based on the premise that material would be moved from the high side of the proposed lots to the low side. He went on to say that the SP Sheets pertained to the all of the stormwater plans for the project and showed all of the road construction and lot development in that area to be done at once. The Chairman commented that he did not, therefore, see an issue with the above-referenced matter and asked that it be explained properly to Kevin Leonard, PE.
The Chairman asked if Tom Carr, CWS, had reviewed comments from the Town Engineer relative to the Fiscal Impact Study. Tom Carr, CWS, advised that he had needed to forward the comment to the applicant’s consultant for further comment. Mark Suennen noted that after his review of Fiscal Impact Study he had additional questions; he handed his comments/questions to Tom Carr, CWS, with the expectation that the applicant’s consultant would review them.
Tom Carr, CWS, stated that a revision of the plan was currently being worked on and would include a description of each revision. He noted that he was likely to request that the subdivision be tabled for one month to allow for the revisions and the Town Engineer’s review to be completed.
The Chairman asked for comments or questions from the Board; there were no comments or questions. He then invited comments or questions from the audience. Jay Marden of Gregg Mill Road commented that he had spoken with Burr Tupper of the Conservation Commission and Mr. Tupper was in support of the open space being owned either by the Town with the State having an easement or having the State own the open space with the Town having an easement. He also asked that the open space land been identified. Mark Suennen asked if the creation of a Home Owners Association continued to be the applicant’s first choice with regard to ownership of the open space land. Tom Carr, CWS, answered that the Home Owners Association was still an option but noted that issues arose with enforcement. He added that the best
option was what Ian McSweeney was currently working on with DRED, i.e., State ownership with the Town Conservation Commission having an easement, to allow the land to return to its previous state.
Tom Carr, CWS, identified the location of the open space on the plan and added that the applicant was interested in completing a lot line adjustment in order to give the Martels additional frontage. Jay Marden stated that it had always been his impression that the entire area that Tom Carr, CWS, pointed out, including the proposed frontage for the Martels, would be under the ownership of the Town or State. He continued that having an owner other than the Town or State along the frontage of the Piscataquog River was undesirable. Tom Carr, CWS, pointed out that the lot line adjustment was not part of the current application and if the Martels decided to move forward with a separate application appropriate notice would be given. Jay Marden reiterated that it had always been represented that the Town would take
ownership of the frontage along the river. Tom Carr, CWS, indicated that the intent of the lot line adjustment was not malicious and that a serious problem existed with the access to the open space. He explained ATVs were accessing the open space and it needed to stop. He believed there was no better policeman to stop the access than Jason Martel. Jay Marden pointed out that access to the townspeople would also be eliminated. Tom Carr, CWS, pointed out a location on the plan that could serve as future access to the open space. Jay Marden commented that he was interested in hearing the opinion of the Russell Foundation on this matter. The Chairman stated that the lot line adjustment was separate from the current subdivision being discussed. Rodney Towne and Peter Hogan disagreed with the Chairman that the lot line adjustment was a separate issue.
Tom Carr, CWS, stated that the intent of the open space was land preservation. He again noted the existing problem of ATV activity on the land and reasoned that there was lack of enforcement because the current landowner did not live on the property. Rodney Towne commented that only looking at one landowner was an unacceptable way of looking to the future. Tom Carr, CWS, clarified that the applicant intended on deeding the land to DRED with an easement for the Conservation Commission. He continued that the aforementioned entities would be able to address problems with the open space land.
Peter Hogan asked when the applicant had anticipated the lot line adjustment to take place; he believed the adjustment needed to occur prior to the current subdivision approval. Tom Carr, CWS, explained that the lot line adjustment would not need to occur prior to the current subdivision approval if DRED received ownership of the land and they were supportive of the adjustment. He added it was likely that submission of the lot line adjustment would be done prior to completion of the current application. Tom Carr, CWS, stated that the Board had previously advised that the lot line adjustment required a separate application. It was Peter Hogan’s opinion that the lot line adjustment was not separate from the current subdivision because it was related with the open space and the Town’s access. He
expressed his displeasure of losing the current access location to the open space. He pointed out that should the lot line adjustment be approved the applicant would lose the ability to create a through road which would negate his reasoning for granting the road length waiver. Charles Cleary, Esq., acknowledged Peter Hogan’s points and stated that if an application for a lot line adjustment were to be submitted the Board could make the determination of whether to approve or deny it. Rodney Towne disagreed with Charles Cleary, Esq., and went on to say that the proposed open space needed to include the area in question. Charles Cleary, Esq., advised that the lot line adjustment was not part of the proposed plan. Rodney Towne, Esq., asked if the Martels intended on requesting approval for a lot line adjustment from DRED, the Conservation Commission and the Board. Charles Cleary, Esq., stated that until this evening he had not weighed the pros
and cons of the lot line adjustment and after hearing the Board’s views he may decide not to move forward with the request. Peter Hogan reiterated that the lot line adjustment eliminated his justification for the extended cul-de-sac.
Donna Mombourquette of 42 West Lull Place stated that she anticipated major problems once the town owned the open space land. She stated that she did not have enough information to provide her position on this matter.
Brandy Mitroff of Thornton Road asked for clarification that a lot line adjustment application required the applicant to be the owner of the land referenced in the application. The Coordinator explained that each property owner involved in the lot line adjustment was required to sign the application. Brandy Mitroff stated that DRED and the Conservation Commission needed to agree to a lot line adjustment prior to the submission of the application. Tom Carr, CWS, confirmed Brandy Mitroff’s statement.
Brandy Mitroff suggested that the current owner install a temporary fence to resolve any
issues with ATV activity.
Donna Mombourquette stated that the Town had spent lots of money opposing the permitting of a gravel pit operation in this location. She believed that the Board should discuss whether or not the removal of gravel from the subdivision could be considered a commercial taking of gravel and suggested that the Department of Revenue be contacted for further assistance. She stated that she did not want to see one stone removed from the subdivision as it would be deemed a gravel operation. She continued that there was a history with this property owner of blatant disregard for Town ordinances and State laws that included burning, removing sand and gravel, and cutting trees without permits. Tris Gordon stated that he had never broken any laws. Donna Mombourquette asked for the Board to consider stipulating penalties
for any illegal work completed prior to the approval of the subdivision. The Chairman noted Donna Mombourquette’s concerns.
Jay Marden asked Tom Carr, CWS, if the applicant intended to gift all of the excess material from the subdivision to the Town. Tom Carr, CWS, answered that the applicant intended on gifting the Town whatever volume of material they would accept. The Chairman’s interpretation was that theoretically all the excess material could be accepted by the Town and therefore no there would not be any material sold commercially. Jay Marden stated that if any material was removed from the site that was not given to the Town the subdivision became a gravel operation. Charles Cleary, Esq., pointed out that it would be illegal to treat the Town differently than the applicant. He explained that two recent court cases spoke to this issue and found that it was allowable to remove excess material off site. The
Chairman said that surveying the property had given the applicant information on the elevation of the land and the required cuts and fills. He noted that a calculation could be done to determine how much material would be left over. Tom Carr, CWS, said that the previous engineer for the project had tried his best to balance the site in terms of material needed for lot and road development but there was still an excess. The Chairman asked Tom Carr, CWS, to have an amount of material that would be removed from the subdivision ready for the Board's information at the next meeting.
Jay Marden believed that a recorded easement of the well radiuses needed to be completed prior to the sale of the property.
Mark Suennen MOVED to deny the road length waiver on the principle that it does not keep with the spirit and intent of the regulations. Rodney Towne seconded the motion. Mark Suennen, Rodney Towne – AYE. Dean Mehlhorn and Peter Hogan - ABSTAINED. The Chairman voted to break the tie and ABSTAINED. The motion FAILED.
The applicant agreed to extend the statutory deadline of the subdivision to September 28, 2010. Charles Cleary, Esq., stated that they would work on more information to present to the Board regarding the road length waiver for Walker Way. Mark Suennen pointed out that the Conservation Commission had asked for a 100' setback from the river. Peter Hogan asked if that had been related only to the through road. Mark Suennen said he was not sure and thought it should be discussed anyway. He suggested that the next hearing be scheduled for one hour.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the subdivision of Twin Bridge Land Management, LCC, 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 28, 2010, at 8:30 p.m. for one hour. Rodney Towne second the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MILLS, JAMES F. (Owner)
FRANCESTOWN SAND AND GRAVEL, KRIS STEWART (Applicant)
Location: Bunker Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #1/2-8
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Present in the audience were Henry Kunhardt, P.E., Kris Stewart, Dennis McKenney, LLS, and Michael Boyle. The Chairman advised that the above-captioned matter was scheduled for an informational session and as such general concepts would be discussed along with suggestions for assistance. He noted that nothing that anyone said would bind the applicant or the Board.
Henry Kunhardt, P.E., stated that he was present for the owner of Francestown Sand and Gravel, James F. Mills. He explained that the gravel pit was originally permitted in 1999 as a three phase operation; each phase less than two acres. He continued that the premise of the pit was that removal of material and reclamation would be done in such a way that there would never be more than two acres open at a time. He added that because there was never more than two acres open at a time a Site Specific Permit was not required.
Henry Kunhardt, P.E., explained that a Site Specific Permit was now being required because the size of the entire project was greater than 100,000 s.f. He noted that he had spoken with Amy Clark at DES regarding alternatives to the Site Specific Permit as it would be a significant cost to the owner during a time when the pit was not providing revenue due to current market conditions. He added that the Coordinator had suggested requesting a waiver from DES. He advised that DES had not allowed for a waiver request of the Site Specific Permit. He continued that DES had agreed that if the owner changed their intent with the Town to reflect less than 100,000 s.f. of disturbance the Site Specific Permit would not be required.He indicated that he was looking for guidance from the Board as to how to proceed with
amending the intent.
Henry Kunhardt, P.E., stated that the plan that was displayed was not his own but from Civil Engineers in Manchester, NH. He noted that he had attempted to contact the Civil Engineers but believed the business was no longer operating. He explained that the plan showed a 100 scale overlay of the phasing on top of the lot lines. He pointed out the location of Phases I, II and III. He noted that to date about 40,000 s.f. of land had been disturbed.
Kris Stewart stated that since 1999, 37,500 s.f. had been disturbed, noting that not even a a full acre had been disturbed. He explained that the pits he operated reclaimed as they disturbed. He pointed out that not much impact had been done at the pit with the exception of using material for the recent flooding. He pointed out that two years ago the Board of Selectmen had determined that a Site Specific Permit was not necessary for the above-captioned gravel pit because of the minor disturbance. He added that he did not have a problem with obtaining a Site Specific Permit but did not believe it was necessary at this time because of the minimal disturbance. He believed that the State’s demand from June 2010, that the operation cease and desist as well as obtain a Site Specific Permit by August
21, 2010, was unreasonable.
Henry Kunhardt, P.E., commented that he had viewed the gravel pit and there were not
any erosion issues.
Rodney Towne asked what entity had issued the cease and desist notice. Kris Stewart answered that DES had sent the cease and desist notice. He went on to say that DES had advised that because intent existed to disturb five acres a Site Specific Permit was required. He noted that because he reclaimed as he disturbed not even an acre had been disturbed. He further noted that the pit was more like a feeder pit rather than a major operation.
Mark Suennen asked for confirmation that DES was supportive of the applicant reducing the pit to the Phase I limits to avoid the Site Specific Permit requirement. Henry Kunhardt, P.E., confirmed Mark Suennen’s question. The Chairman stated that in order for the applicant to move forward with the Phase II and Phase III portion of the plan in the future he would need to resubmit the plan or an amendment to the plan. Henry Kunhardt, P.E., suggested that the Board could reinstate the current plan in the future. Kris Stewart clarified that he would need to provide the Board with an amendment to the plan as well as a Site Specific Permit.
Henry Kunhardt, P.E., asked the Board if the amended plan could be approved as an agenda item or if it was necessary to have a hearing with abutter notification. The Chairman asked how the applicant would propose making the amendment. Henry Kunhardt, P.E., indicated that he would submit a written request that would reflect a reduction in the scope of the gravel development. Peter Hogan, Dean Mehlhorn and Rodney Towne agreed that Henry Kunhardt, P.E.’s, suggestion was acceptable. Peter Hogan commented that he did not think abutter notification was necessary. Mark Suennen added that abutters would not see any difference with the amendment.
Kris Stewart asked if the future expansion of Phase II and Phase III would be treated as a new operation or an amendment. Mark Suennen asked if the original permit included a reclamation plan. Kris Stewart answered yes and pointed out the reclamation plan. He explained that when the property was excavated its shape would resemble a bowl. Henry Kunhardt, P.E., pointed out that should the applicant request an expansion he would be required to obtain a Site Specific Permit and this would include a new set of plans.
Mark Suennen stated that the Board could not assert or promise that a new plan would not be required at the time of any future expansion. Kris Stewart stated that there would be no changes to the use of the property or the hauling. He continued that what he would hate to happen was for abutters to say that they did not want the gravel operation to expand even though the property was approved for such an operation in 1999. Peter Hogan clarified that at the time of the expansion request a new plan would most likely be required but not a new application. Mark Suennen pointed out that at a new Board may be present at the time of a future expansion request and as such the applicant was taking a risk that their opinions may be different.
Henry Kunhardt, P.E., stated that the current Earth Removal Regulations draft indicated under Section 16, C, regarding renewal or amendments, that an applicant follow the same procedures as those required for original excavation permits. Peter Hogan believed that the procedures being referenced were relative to the paperwork aspect of the process. Kris Stewart suggested that the Board make the Site Specific Permit a condition of any future expansion. The Chairman pointed out that by cutting back the gravel pit operation the applicant was receiving the benefit of not being required to obtain a Site Specific Permit today. He noted that receipt of this dispensation at this time put the applicant at risk of potential issues arising in the future. HE said that the Board could not approve a request now for the
future. Kris Stewart said that he was not seeking approval for future plans but was asking the Board to create stipulations for future expansion. Peter Hogan asked if the applicant wanted the Board to add language to the approval that stated the following, “anticipated expansion of this pit will require submission of a Site Specific Permit and an updated plan”. Henry Kunhardt, P.E., pointed out that the word “anticipated” could not be used and suggested that it be replaced with the word “any”. Kris Stewart further suggested that the language should include, “any expansion over 100,000 s.f.”. The Chairman commented that he had a problem with merely using “any expansion” and suggested adding “any expansion up to the original plan”. He continued that future expansion could not exceed what was currently approved. Kris Stewart indicated that he did not have a problem with
the future expansion not exceeding the current approved amount.
The Chairman stated that this was just an informational session and if the applicant chose to move forward with the application he could come back and the Board would make a decision at that point. He added that conceptually it sounded like the way to go. Mark Suennen commented that the Board would be dictating the process for a future Board to deal with the expansion and questioned whether the Board had the authority to do so. Peter Hogan did not believe the Board was authorized to dictate to a future Board. Rodney Towne added that the Board could provide guidelines to a future Board.
The Chairman indicated that the applicant could propose language he believed was appropriate with regard to this matter and it could be addressed officially at a later meeting.
The Coordinator asked the Board if they wanted to schedule this matter for a later meeting under Miscellaneous Business or if a hearing would be required. The Chairman answered that Miscellaneous Business was appropriate and stated that it would be useful if the applicant was present when the matter was discussed under Miscellaneous Business. Kris Stewart commented that it would not be a problem to be present.
TOWNES FAMILY TRUST
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: South Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #13/37
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Dennis McKenney, LLS, Charles & Lydia Peak, Michael Boyle and Jeff Hudson.
The Chairman stated that the application form and cover sheet had been submitted. He noted that there were no outstanding fees. He advised that there were some items missing from the waiver requests for a completed application.
Dennis McKenney, LLS, provided the Board with a revised plan and stated that he had faxed a revised waiver request earlier in the day.
Dennis McKenney, LLS, identified the location of Tax Map/Lot #13/37 on the plan and explained that currently the parcel of land was about 90 acres. He continued that the applicant proposed to create two lots; a 12.3 acre lot for the existing house lot and a 77 acre lot. He noted that each parcel met current zoning and no change was going to be made as to the use of the property. He added that the applicant intended to leave the 77 acre parcel as open land for a considerable amount of time. He further added that the Townes family was an abutter on several sides of the property and formerly owned the New England Forestry conservation land that was located to the left of the property.
Mark Suennen asked if the applicant intended to restrict further subdivision of the proposed 77 acre parcel in the future. Dennis McKenney, LLS, answered no and stated that the owner would come back in the future for a further subdivision if needed.
The Chairman asked if Dennis McKenney, LLS, was aware of the missing items for a completed application. Dennis McKenney, LLS, answered that he believed he addressed themissing items during his revision of the plan.
The Chairman asked if the driveway permits had been obtained. Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated advised that the driveway permits had been submitted and resubmitted.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to explain what changes had been made to the waiver request. The Coordinator answered that a waiver request for supplying information on the septic, future subdivisions, and studies had been added to the waiver request.
The Chairman asked for comments or questions from the Board. Peter Hogan indicated that he did not have any problems with the waiver requests. Mark Suennen stated that for the purpose of consistency the Board should require some amount of topography to be shown on the plan, and mentioned the recent requirements for the cell tower lot on Wilson Hill Road. He added that the entire 77 acres did not need to be surveyed but noted that he would like to see topography along the property lines of the existing lot and the proposed remainder lot within 200’. Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that the entire lot had been surveyed. Mark Suennen pointed out that the plan the applicant had submitted did not contain any topography, tree features, rock features or water features. Rodney Towne questioned why Mark
Suennen believed the Board should review the topography of the property. Mark Suennen explained that the Board should be aware of any features that may be of concern. Rodney Towne assured Mark Suennen that there was no reason to be concerned. The Coordinator added that zoning could not be accurately proven without the acreage breakdown per lot and historically the Board required that an area where a house lot could exist also needed to be proven. The Chairman commented that there was a lot to be said for being consistent about how things get done. Peter Hogan stated that the lot was enormous and he was not worried about the aforementioned concerns. The Coordinator pointed out that the Board had recently required the same applicant for the subdivision of a lot across the street to create a ISWMP for the 50’ strip to access the flat land for a lot that was not being developed. Rodney Towne asked if the test pit requirement was part of
the Subdivision Regulations. The Coordinator confirmed that the test pit requirement was part of the Subdivision Regulations. She continued that the requirement for proof of dry land was under the Zoning Ordinance and the Board could not waive that item.
Mark Suennen stated that he was not questioning whether or not a building parcel existed on the 77 acres; however, he needed proof before he could approve the lot. Dennis McKenney,LLS, asked what information would satisfy as proof that the lot contained a buildable area. Mark Suennen answered that the applicant needed to provide topographical features within reasonable distances from the edges of the lot. Dennis McKenney, LLS, asked if it would be satisfactory to the Board to demonstrate that the 255’ square shown on the plan could support onsite septic and would have no wetland impact. Dean Mehlhorn requested that grades could also be highlighted. Mark Suennen commented that he was agreeable to the applicant demonstrating the topographical features and grade in the 255’ square area. The
Chairman agreed with Mark Suennen’s request. Peter Hogan stated that normally he would agree; however, in this instance he was convinced that the 77 acre parcel could support a home. Dean Mehlhorn commented that because the Board had required topographical information for the lot across the street he believed that topographical information should also be required for this subdivision in order to be consistent. Peter Hogan pointed out that the topographical information had been required for the lot across the street because of potential issues with access to the lot that this subdivision did not have. The Chairman questioned how the Board could be sure there were no potential problems with access or any other aspect without topographical information. Rodney Towne suggested that a site walk be scheduled.
The Chairman advised the applicant that a site walk could be scheduled and the issue of requiring topographical information could be reassessed following the walk. Dennis McKenney,LLS, stated that he would wait until after the site walk to submit any information.
The Coordinator stated that she needed to look into the Zoning Ordinance relative to buildable area requirements as a variance from the ZBA may be required. Dennis McKenney,LLS, stated that he would like submit topographical and test pit information to allow the process to move forward. He asked if the test pit information needed to be submitted to DES for approval. The Coordinator answered that the Subdivision Regulations listed requirements that mirrored DES but because the property was over five acres State subdivision approval was not necessary.
Peter Hogan asked if all the required items for a completed application had been submitted. The Chairman stated that a plan at the tax map scale of 1"=400’ needed to be submitted. Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that he would submit the tax map scale plan.
The Chairman stated that a waiver request had been submitted for the Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plan. He advised that the Board could accept the waiver or accept the waiver with conditions that it may be required following the site walk. Peter Hogan added the matter could be adjourned to the next hearing. The Coordinator pointed out that adjourning the matter would go beyond the thirty day statutory deadline for acceptance.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waiver request for the submission of three print copies of soil maps. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept the waiver request for the Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plan. Rodney Towne seconded the motion. Rodney Towne, Peter Hogan and Dean Mehlhorn – AYE. Mark Suennen – NAY. The motion PASSED.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept the application of Townes Family Trust, Location: South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/37, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete with the stipulation that the tax map scale plan at 1”=400’ be submitted the following day. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the application had been accepted as complete and the deadline for Board action was November 14, 2010.
The Board scheduled a site walk for Saturday, September 18, 2010, at 7:00 a.m. The Chairman advised that the proposed driveway needed to be marked. The Coordinator stated that she would send the applicant a memo regarding what items were required for a site walk.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn Townes Family Trust, Location: South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/37, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to October 12, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
BOYLE, MICHAEL J. & JANIE A.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Non-Residential Site Plan Review/Home Shop
Location: 45 Barss Drive
Tax Map/Lot #14/56-7
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Michael Boyle, David Spain, and Major Holbein, USAF, New Boston Tracking Station.
The Chairman stated that all items for a completed application had been submitted.
Michael Boyle advised that he resided at 45 Barss Drive in New Boston and was a self-employed excavation contractor. He continued that he had lived in his home since 1996 and built an existing barn in 2001. He stated that he was applying to be recognized as a Home Shop.
The Chairman asked what type of work would be done at the Home Shop. Michael
Boyle explained that a neighbor had lodged a complaint that he was operating a business out of his barn. He continued that he owned an excavator, bulldozer and other heavy equipment that was not stored in the barn; however, he noted that he did store some piping, lasers, and grade stakes in the barn. He went on to say that the primary use of the barn was for personal use. He indicated that he was moving forward with the application to make everyone happy.
Mark Suennen asked the applicant if customers would go to his house. Michael Boyle answered that the nature of his business was offsite work. He added that he owned 10 lots and when business was slow he would take his equipment home to work on his own property.
Mark Suennen asked the applicant if he displayed signs for his business on any of property. Michael Boyle answered that he did not have any signs displayed. He indicated that to meet the requirements of the Home Shop application he had outlined the location of signs and parking.
David Spain of 44 Barss Drive noted that he abutted the applicant’s property and stated that there was no evidence of commercial traffic to the applicant’s home.
The Chairman explained that if the Board approved that plan all of the items that were listed on the plan would need to be implemented at the property. He continued that the Board would conduct a compliance site walk to confirm that what was listed on the plan matched the property and a compliance hearing would be scheduled. Peter Hogan advised that if the applicant did not intend on placing a sign on the property he could simply write “no sign” on the plan. The Chairman stressed that the applicant should only list things on the plan that he intended to implement.
The applicant decided to remove the sign location from the plan. The Chairman asked if
the applicant wanted to keep the installation of exterior lighting on the plan. Michael Boyle
stated that he did not need the exterior lighting, parking for customers or signs. He continued that he did not feel that he even needed to go through this process but he had been encouraged by Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, to do so.
Shannon Silver stated that the applicant kept equipment for his business on his property that he used off site and that the parking shown on the plan was for his equipment. Mark Suennen suggested that a designated parking area be shown on the plan rather than defined individual parking spaces.
Peter Hogan pointed out that items that were allowable to be on the plan, should be on the
plan. He explained that future complaints of items on the plan would then not be justified as they were allowable. Michael Boyle asked that the application move forward with the proposed plan as all the items on it were allowable. Peter Hogan advised that amendments could be made to the proposed plan by hand. He explained that the main purpose of the plan was for safety and assurance that the lot was suitable for the proposed use.
The Chairman explained that a proposed plan needed to submitted and after approval the Board would conduct a compliance walk at the property. He continued that following the compliance walk a compliance hearing would be scheduled to finalize the process.
Michael Boyle stated that he was happy to submit the proposed plan as written. The Chairman suggested that the applicant use whiteout to remove parking spaces and create a general parking area. Michael Boyle agreed to amend the plan to show general parking.
The Chairman asked if the applicant stored leftover material onsite, i.e., loam, rip-rap, or sand. Michael Boyle answered that he did store some material on his property but it was for personal use and not related to the business. He added that he did store some pipe for the business inside his barn.
Major Holbein of the USAF was present on behalf of the abutting New Boston Air Force Station. He commented that the parking area did not appear to pose any erosion concerns and as such the New Boston Air Force Station did not have any issues with the proposed plan. Michael Boyle added that he intended to use gravel for the parking area and that there would be minimal impact.
The Chairman advised that the applicant needed to obtain a sign permit from the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer prior to the installation of the sign.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept the application as complete. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the application had been accepted as complete and the deadline for Board action was November 18, 2010. The applicant agreed to submit his revised plan by October 14, 2010, and agreed to have his property in compliance by November 14, 2010.
Peter Hogan suggested that the applicant’s hours of operation be amended. MichaelBoyle agreed and changed his hours of operation to Monday through Sunday, 6:00 a.m. through
9:00 p.m.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the site plan for Michael J. and Janie A., Boyle to operate a contractor's home shop from 45 Barss Drive, Tax Map/Lot #14/56-7, subject to:
CONDITION(S) PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of three (3) copies of the revised site plan that include all checklist corrections and any agreed-upon conditions from this hearing;
2. Execution of a Site Review Agreement regarding the condition(s) subsequent.
The deadline for complying with the condition(s) precedent shall be October 14, 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 prior to that date, an administrative NOTICE OF DENIAL shall be issued without further action of the Board being required.
CONDITION(S) SUBSEQUENT:
1. All of the site improvements are to be completed per the approved site plan.
2. The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing and the opening of the business on the site.
3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted prior to the compliance hearing.
4. A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of Permit to Operate or Certificate of Occupancy, or both. The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be November 14, 2010 the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing on same as described in item 4 above.
Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5a. Letter copy from Shannon Silver, New Boston Planning Board Assistant to, SHB Properties, LLC, re: Conditions Subsequent deadline, Pulpit & Bedford Roads and Letter of Credit expiration date, for the Board’s information.
5b. Letter received September 09, 2010, from Jeff Hudson, SHB Properties, LLC, to the New Boston Planning Board, re: request for extension on conditions subsequent deadline from October 15, 2010, to October 15, 2012, for the Board’s action. (applicant will be present)
14a.Letter received September 13, 2010, from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Shannon Silver, Planning Board Assistant, re: SHB Properties, LLC – Evaluation of Infrastructure Improvements, for the Board’s information.
14b.Outstanding Items Summary received September 13, 2010, from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, re: SHB Properties, LLC, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman addressed above-referenced items 5a, 5b, 14a and 14b together as they were related. Present in the audience was Jeff Hudson of SHB Properties.
The Chairman indicated that the conditions subsequent deadline and Letter of Credit were expiring on the above-referenced matter and the applicant was seeking an extension; he asked the applicant if he had anything to add to the letter that he had submitted. Jeff Hudson did not add any comments.
The Coordinator advised that a drainage structure was missing a grate and some seeding was required.
The Chairman asked for comments or questions from the Board. Mark Suennen asked the applicant to explain what the future plans were for the property. Jeff Hudson stated that he intended to either build on the property or sell the lots. He added the original intent was to construct private residential homes at $500,000. He continued that the original intent was no longer realistic due to market conditions and the owners may now consider some two-family residences.
Mark Suennen commented that he did not have an issue with granting the extension.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if there were any safety issues that the Board should be concerned about. The Coordinator advised that there was a missing grate from a detention basin. Jeff Hudson stated that he was not aware of the missing grate. He also stated that the intent was to build on the property and he preferred not to put the finish coat on the road until the homes were built for the betterment of the road. He added that currently there was no deterioration of the road and it was not plowed during the winter. The Chairman reiterated that a grate was missing from a detention basin. Jeff Hudson advised that the missing grate would be replaced immediately. The Chairman stated that the Board would make the replacement of the grate a condition of the extension.
The Chairman explained that the bond needed to be extended and requested that it be extended to December of 2012. Jeff Hudson advised that the First Colebrook Bank would only extend the bond in one year increments.
Peter Hogan MOVED to extend the conditions subsequent deadline to October 15, 2011, and to require a new Letter of Credit by October 23, 2011, for SHB Properties, Pulpit Road and Bedford Road, additionally the missing grate as noted by Kevin Leonard, PE, in his letter of 9/13/10 should be replaced as soon as possible. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Driveway Permits for Emile Bussiere, Jr., SIB Trust, Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/93-38 thru 45 and Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/88 thru 12/88-12, 12/89 and 12/89-16 thru 22, for the Board’s approval. (previously distributed at the August 24, 2010, meeting)
The Coordinator ran through a list of lots that the Board had listed following the site walk for driveway permits confirming the existence of an ISWMP or noting that one had not been required due to the topography, etc., not meeting the definition of critical areas.
Mark Suennen asked if the applicant was required to submit the driveway permits at sub-grade. The Coordinator answered that the driveway permits were required to be submitted at sub-grade. Mark Suennen did not believe that the driveways for lots #12/93-38 and #12/93-40 were at sub-grade because they continued to be subject to blasting.
The Chairman asked for questions or comments from the Board; there were no questions
or comments.
Mark Suennen MOVED to approve the driveway permits for SIB Trust, Susan and Indian Falls Roads as submitted with the Planning Board's standard requirements:
1) This permit requires two inches (2") of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty-five feet (25') from the centerline of the road; 2) The driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of ten foot (10') radii minimum; and, 3) The driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60 - 90 degrees, with the exception of lots #12/93-40 and #12/93-48 because they were not yet at sub-grade. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. Letter dated September 1, 2010, from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Eugene & Helen Caggiano, 252 Bunker Hill Road, re: Home Business Qualifications, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman asked if the above-referenced matter pertained to a Home Business that was operating without a Non-Residential Site Plan. The Coordinator answered yes and explained that Eugene & Helen Caggiano had been contacted in 2009 regarding this matter and the Planning Department was told that the arena was for personal use; however, recently posted at Dodge’s Store was an advertisement for the business. She noted that a response to the above-referenced September 1, 2010, letter had not been received.
Mark Suennen asked if it was typical of the Board to request that the Board of Selectmen send a cease and desist letter. Rodney Towne commented that he would defer to the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
The Coordinator stated that historically the Board would approve boarding and riding stables on residential lots, listing them as either a home business or an agricultural use. She explained that recently the Board learned that a Residential-Agricultural lot may have only one principle use and any additional uses need to be accessory. She stated that the Board needed to decide whether the business was considered a business under the Home Business Rules or whether the use was prohibited on a Residential-Agricultural lot. Peter Hogan commented that this issue brought to light a glitch in the zoning that needed to be changed. Mark Suennen questioned what Peter Hogan meant by glitch in the zoning. Peter Hogan answered that the glitch was that the two uses were not permitted on the same lot. Rodney
Towne asked how the problem could be fixed. Mark Suennen stated that the two uses could fall under mixed use zoning, which the Town did not currently have.
The Chairman asked if the Board would turn the matter over to the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer if the Caggianos did not respond to the September 1, 2010, letter by the September 28, 2010, meeting. Peter Hogan believed that this was more of a Planning Board issue than the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer. He suggested that the Board look into how the Town of Peterborough handled the two use issue as he was aware of a riding arena where the owner resided on the premises.
The Chairman stated that the two use issue could be discussed at the following meeting during the scheduled zoning discussion. Peter Hogan suggested asking Town Counsel how the Board could go about approving two uses on one lot. Mark Suennen agreed with Peter Hogan and wanted to know from Town Counsel what modifications needed to be made with respect to zoning to allow for the two uses on lot.
11. Letter received via email September 9, 2010, from Earl J. Sandford, P.E., Sandford Surveying & Engineering, to New Boston Planning Board, re: Earth Removal Regulations, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman noted that this letter suggested basically that any gravel pit that had an AoT permit be allowed to submit that permit and plans and not be subject to the town's regulations and hearing requirements. Mark Suennen thought that the procedure outlined in Earl Sandford, PE's, letter was not unreasonable. The Coordinator pointed out that State law set the requirements for permits and hearings and she was not sure if a local regulation could trump thos requirements.
The Chairman stated that the concern of the gravel pit owners that a hearing opened themselves up for their neighbor's complaints did not seem to be a great risk. He noted that as long as the operation followed the regulations the abutters' concerns would be addressed but did not necessarily mean that an operation would be denied or shut down.
The Chairman stated that the Board would discuss this letter when the regulations were reviewed next and noted that State law pointed to all applications needing a hearing. He noted that a draft application form was one of the things that still needed to be addressed.
The Coordinator advised that a site walk was scheduled for Thursday, September 16, 2010, at 6:00 p.m., at Whipplewill Road.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 10:52 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
| 
