TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of January 26, 2010 Meetings
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Douglas Hill. Present were alternates Mark Suennen and Dean Mehlhorn, and Ex-officio David Woodbury. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Board Assistant Shannon Silver and Recording Clerk Valerie Diaz.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Michael Dalhberg, LLS, Sandra Martel, Ken Lombard, Bob Todd, LLS, Charles Swinford, Rob Starace, Cutler Brown, Clifton Labree, Brian Pratt, PE, Tim Leclair, Diane Boutin and Donna Hughes.
Vice Chairman Douglas Hill seated alternates Mark Suennen and Dean Mehlhorn as full voting members in Stu Lewin and Peter Hogan's absence.
Discussion, re: Subdivision/Site Plan Review Regulation Amendments
The Coordinator handed the Board copies of the Subdivision/Site Plan Review Regulation Amendments. She noted that the packet contained proposed amendments and housekeeping items relative to subdivision and site plan review.
The Coordinator stated that she would review the amendments with the Board. She noted that proposed amendment #1 addressed the definition of abutter. She explained that the current definition of abutter found in the subdivision and site plan review regulations was outdated. She continued that to avoid missing changes in the future the language of the definition would simply refer to the statute. David Woodbury stated that the change made sense.
Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator for the time frame with regard to adopting the proposed changes. The Coordinator answered that after the Board had an opportunity to go through the amendments and make any changes a public hearing would be scheduled.
The Coordinator explained that proposed amendment #2 reflected recent changes to state law and as such she added language that clarified when the design review process ended. David Woodbury asked why it was important to mark the end of the design review process. The Coordinator answered that the significance of marking the end of the design review process was not clearly stated in the statue. She added that it was possible that the change was made to make an applicant aware of when the preliminary process had ended.
The Coordinator advised that proposed amendment #3 reflected changes to state law and language had been added to Section IV-E that required an applicant to be notified within 10 days of the conditional approval of a preliminary plan.
The Coordinator noted that proposed amendment #4 referred to changes to Section IV-F of the Subdivision Regulations would make corrected references to Stormwater Management Plans; change Site Specific Permit to Alteration of Terrain Permit; remove certain items from the list of things required for a completed application and move those items to a new section of Additional Requirements for Final Plans.
David Woodbury asked if AOT stood for Alteration of Terrain Permit. The Coordinator replied that it did. Mark Suennen suggested adding the reference AOT to the regulations.
David Woodbury pointed out that items A through M of Section VI-F were required for a completed application. The Coordinator explained that a new section would be added, Section 3, to address items that had to be submitted, as determined by the Planning Board, for review and approval, before final approval of the application could be granted. She noted that the Board could make time frame decisions for the submission of these items on a per application basis rather than requiring them all to be submitted at the start.
Mark Suennen asked if the items in Section 3 of Section VI-F were required unless an applicant requested a waiver. The Coordinator answered yes. Douglas Hill suggested adding language to the section that stated, “additional requirements for final plans unless approved by waiver.” Mark Suennen asked if it was the applicant’s responsibility to request the waiver or if the Board needed to decide which items applied to a specific application. Douglas Hill stated that the items were required unless the applicant requested a waiver. The Coordinator agreed with Douglas Hill. Mark Suennen asked if the Board could exercise discretion in waiving items for final approval of plans or was it only by the applicant’s request that items could be waived. The Coordinator
explained that not all the items would applicable to all subdivisions, i.e., creation of new roads. She added that with regard to the impact studies the Board had been advised by counsel to require those items unless the applicant could show cause on why they could be waived. Mark Suennen asked if items A through E could be waived. The Coordinator clarified that any item in the subdivision regulations could be waived. She suggested adding the following language, “...the following items shall be submitted unless waived, upon request and for cause, before final approval of the application can be granted.”. Mark Suennen commented that he would prefer the Coordinator’s suggested language at the introduction of Section 3. David Woodbury commented that he believed Mark Suennen was asking if the Board could initiate a waiver or did the request need to come from the applicant. The Coordinator clarified that any waiver request
would need to come from the applicant. She added that new statutes had tightened the waiver language, only allowing for two ways for a waiver to be granted, hardship needed to be proved and/or due to the nature of the land that is part of the application, granting of the waiver complied with the intent of the regulations.
The Coordinator stated that proposed amendment #5 changed the time frame for making decisions available to the public from 144 hours to 5 business days to reflect changes to the statute.
Mark Suennen asked if #4, Digital Plat Filing Requirements could simply state with that the information be compatible with the Planning Office’s software. The Coordinator clarified that it was Bob Todd, LLS’s, software. Mark Suennen stated that rather than changing the language in Section #4 every time Bob Todd made an upgrade to his software he suggested adding language that would require software be compatible with AUTOCAD. The Coordinator stated that she would make the appropriate change to Section #4.
The Coordinator stated that proposed amendment #5 changed the deadline for making available notices of decisions regarding incomplete applications from 144 hours to 5 business days. Douglas Hill asked if the 5 business days ran Monday through Friday. The Coordinator answered yes.
The Coordinator noted that proposed amendment #6 changed the deadline for making notices of decision available for public inspection from 144 hours to 5 business days and required a notice of decision to be made available to the applicant. She continued that the proposed amendment would also require the notice of decision to be recorded with the subdivision plat.
The Coordinator explained that proposed amendment #7 removed the reference “2,q,” from Section V-E of the Subdivision Regulations as it was an incorrect reference.
The Coordinator stated that proposed amendment #8 removed item g) from the list of New Development Roads under Section V-S of the Subdivision Regulations. She noted that the remaining list was renumbered accordingly.
The Coordinator explained that proposed amendment #9 removed Section V-T, of the Subdivision Regulation in its entirety as the section was going to be reflected in the Driveway Regulations.
The Coordinator advised that proposed amendment #10 addressed Section V-U, Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations, and changed the preferred scale of the locus maps from 1”=50’ to 1”=2,000’; added a reference to the New Hampshire Stormwater Management Manual; and, included a requirement for design of stormwater management basin outlet structures and typical detail thereof.
Mark Suennen pointed out that item p), of Section V-U, of the Subdivision Regulations, contained the following typographical error, “with an outlet an outlet”. The Coordinator commented that she would correct the error.
The Coordinator stated that proposed amendment #11 relative to Section V, of the Subdivision Regulations, added a new sub-section V-W, regarding Groundwater Protection. She noted that the language was generated by the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission.
The Coordinator stated that proposed amendment #12 with regard to Section VI-E, Preliminary Plan Layout, of the Subdivision Regulations, deleted the requirement to submit State Subdivision Approval and Dredge and Fill Approval as part of a preliminary plan as it was not required.
The Coordinator stated that proposed amendment # 13 relative to Section VII-A, Final Plat, of the Subdivision Regulations, added the requirement for submission of an extra copy of the final plat to be submitted for distribution to the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer should an Individual Stormwater Management Plan be part of the approved subdivision.
The Coordinator advised that proposed amendment #14 addressed Section IX-B,2, Table of Geometric and Other Standards, of the Subdivision Regulations. She advised that a new sub-section, ab, would be added and would reference the requirement for design of a stormwater management basin outlet structures and reference a typical detail thereof.
The Coordinator explained that proposed amendment #15 with regard to Sections IX-B, 4, and 9, of the Subdivision Regulations, removed the incorrect sub-section reference of IV-F, 2, h, and replaced it with the correct reference of IV-F.
The Coordinator stated that proposed amendment #16 addressed Section XI-B, 10, 9), e.,
relative to As-Built Guidelines in the Subdivision Regulations. She explained that sub-section vii was added and required the location of stump dumps to be added to as-built plans.
The Coordinator stated that proposed amendment #17 relative to Section IX-D, Driveways, of the Subdivision Regulations, deleted requirements that were to be incorporated into the Driveway Regulations and deleted the Typical Driveway detail in its entirety. She pointed out that the current item 3 under this section requiring all driveways be shown on subdivision plans would remain and be renumbered.
The Coordinator advised that proposed amendment #18 with regard to Section X, Administration, of the Subdivision Regulations, referred to the correct staff persons in the Planning Department.
The Coordinator explained that proposed amendment #19, relative to Section IX, Variances, of the Subdivision Regulations, added new statutory language regarding waivers. Mark Suennen asked if the two proposed items could be highlighted as bullets. The Coordinator replied that she would highlight the items.
The Coordinator stated with regard to proposed changes to the Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations, that proposed amendment #1 addressed Section 2.2, D, Proposed Plan and Information, Minor and Major Site Plans, requiring the location and appearance of signs to be shown on site plans. She noted that the proposed amendment was generated from the suggestion of the Small Scale Commercial Committee. The Coordinator explained that proposed amendment #2 with regard to Section 2.2, Proposed Plan and Information, Major Site Plans, added a new section, D-1, as follows, “A lighting plan prepared by a qualified professional that would include the location type of fixtures, height of poles, if any, description of how spillover off site will be prevented, and so on.” Douglas Hill noted that proposed amendment #2 was advisory. He also asked who would meet the definition of a qualified professional. The Coordinator advised that the Planning Board had the discretion to determine
who would be deemed a qualified professional. She noted that if a lighting plan was required it made sense to document who needed to prepare it. Both Mark Suennen and Douglas Hill were of the opinion that without more detail the section was not very useful and it would be better if the wording requiring details on the lighting plan were left as currently written so that the Board could act on each application on a case by case basis. The Coordinator asked if the proposed amendment should be deleted. The Board agreed.
The Coordinator continued that the sections G, H, and I would be renumbered as H, I and J. She also noted that section H added the following language regarding landscape plans, “A landscaping plan prepared by a qualified professional showing…”. Douglas Hill did not believe that the Board should require a qualified professional to prepare a landscaping plan because there were not any regulations to that effect. The Coordinator asked if section H of proposed amendment #2 should be removed. The Board agreed.
The Coordinator explained that proposed amendment #3 addressed Section 3, Personal Wireless Service Facilities, 3.7 Design Submittal Standards, sub-section E. She pointed out that the following language would be added, “A copy shall be provided for each Board member on photo stock paper. Color copies on regular paper are unacceptable.” Mark Suennen suggested the following language, “A color copy shall be provided for each Board member on photo stock paper.”. The Board agreed.
The Coordinator stated that proposed amendment #4 relative to Section 3, Personal Wireless Service Facilities, 3.9 Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR), deleted the type of engineer required to provide certification.
The Coordinator advised that proposed amendment #5, Section 3, Personal Wireless Service Facilities, 3.12 Visibility Standards for Ground Mounted Facilities, allowed balloon tests to be removed during overnight hours; and, required that each Board member receive an original photo rather than a photocopy of the required submission. Mark Suennen asked for clarification on whether the Board would determine the hours in which the balloon may be taken down. The Coordinator clarified that the Board would indeed determine the hours in which a balloon may be taken down.
The Coordinator explained that proposed amendment #6 addressed Section 4, Design and Construction Requirements, by adding a new sub-section, 4.17, regarding Groundwater Protection relative to hazardous materials that may have been or may be stored on the property.
The Coordinator stated that proposed amendment #7 with regard to Section 7, Procedure for Planning Board Review, 7.5, of the Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations, specified that an applicant shall have a copy of the Planning Board’s decision on an application made available to them; and, that the Planning Board’s decision shall be available to the public within 5 business days rather than 144 hours.
The Coordinator noted that proposed amendment #8 referred to Section 10, Waiver Procedure, and added a reference to the new statutory language regarding waivers.
The Coordinator advised that proposed amendment #9 addressed Section 11, Definitions, 11.1 Abutter. She explained that the State definition of abutter would be referenced.
Mark Suennen asked what was meant by the language, “Waivers shall not apply to design and construction standards and requirements”, found in proposed amendment #8 of the Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations. The Coordinator explained that historically the Site Plan Regulations mandated that design and construction standards and requirements not be waived. She continued that waivers could be requested for plan preparation requirements and standards that were shown on the plans. Mark Suennen asked specifically what types of items could not be waived. The Coordinator stated that the items listed in Section 4, such as, traffic access to the site, safety of vehicles and pedestrians, landscaping and screening shall be provided with regard to adjacent properties, storm drainage design
for a 50 year flood, and provisions made for snow storage. Douglas Hill commented that the Board had waived the 3% negative grade in the past and stated that he believed that this requirement was a design guideline. The Coordinator clarified that the 3% negative was required under the Driveway Regulations. Mark Suennen argued that the Driveway Regulations could be considered part of the design construction standards. The Coordinator advised that the Driveway Regulations were not part of the design construction standards and that this was only applicable to the Site Plan Regulations, Section 4, Design and Construction Requirements. The Coordinator advised that the Board could propose an additional amendment to remove this provision for not allowing waivers to the design and construction aspects of site plans. The Board agreed. The Coordinator added that an applicant would need to prove hardship or land use issues in order to obtain a waiver
and that the Planning Board may, by law, grant a waiver to any portion of the Site Plan Review Regulations.
The Board decided to discuss the proposed amendments at the next meeting as all Board members were not present this evening. Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator if she could provide the members with the changes that had been made to the proposed amendments this evening. The Coordinator replied that she would do so.
MISCELLANOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2010.
1. Approval of minutes of December 22, 2009, distributed by email.
David Woodbury MOVED to approve the meeting minutes of December 22, 2009, as written. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2a. Notice of Decision, Town of Goffstown, Zoning Board of Adjustment, re: Woodland Village, special exception, for the Board’s information.
The Vice-Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
2b. Email dated January 19, 2010, from Derek M. Horne, Zoning Code Enforcement Officer,
Town of Goffstown, to Mr. Preece & Ms. Strong, re: Goffstown ZBA hearing on Woodland Village multi-family development, Bog Road, for the Board’s information.
The Vice-Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion
occurred.
3. Article, from Planning Commissioners Journal/Number 77/Winter 2010, titled, “Dealing With Contentious Public Hearings”, for the Board’s information.
The Vice-Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion
occurred.
4. Discussion re: Earth Removal Regulations and memo dated 1/12/10 from the Planning Coordinator, distributed at the 1/12/10 meeting. (If you need any further copies of this information, please let us know as soon as possible.)
The Coordinator asked how the Board would like to approach getting comments from the
Selectmen and Building Inspector with regard to the above-referenced matter: invite them to a
Planning Board meeting, schedule a special meeting, or ask for written comments due a certain date. Douglas Hill commented that he believed written comments would be sufficient. David
Woodbury also believed that written comments would work best. Mark Suennen added that
a meeting could be scheduled should further information be needed after reviewing the
comments.
5. Agenda, Natural Resource Committee meeting, February 16, 2010, Southern New Hampshire Commission, Conference Room, for the Board’s information.
The Vice-Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion
occurred.
7. Read File: Notice of Public Hearings from the Town of Jaffrey, re: installation of a
wireless telecommunication facility.
The Vice-Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion
occurred.
8. Meeting minutes of January 12, 2010, distributed for approval at the next meeting.
The Vice-Chairman noted that these minutes had been distributed by email that day and would be
for approval at the February 9, 2010, meeting.
6. Discussion, re: design guidelines and driveway regulations.
The Coordinator pointed out that the design guidelines and driveway regulations had
been handed out at the previous meeting. She asked the Board if anyone had questions or
comments about the material and, if not, could a public hearing be scheduled for the February 9,
2010, Planning Board meeting. Douglas Hill stated that the Board had reviewed the material and
a public hearing should be scheduled.
The Board took a ten minute recess prior to the start of the next hearing.
Vista Road, LLC
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Wilson Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/33
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Douglas Hill read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Michael Dalhberg, LLS, and Sandra Martel of Vista LLC.
Michael Dalhberg, LLS, stated that a couple of changes had been made to the proposed plan. He explained that the proposed property was a 50’ back lot with the entrance off the Class V frontage on Wilson Hill Road for the cell tower. He noted that revisions had been made to the final paragraph of the waiver request to reflect changes in the state law. He asked the Board for questions or comments.
Douglas Hill asked Michael Dalhberg, LLS, to advise the Board of each waiver request along with a brief synopsis for the reasons of the request. Michael Dalhberg, LLS, stated that a waiver was requested for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Plan because a plan was previously completed at the site plan level. He noted that a waiver request for a Soils Map was made because the proposed lot was a non-buildable lot. He continued that waiver requests for the Traffic, Fiscal, and Impact Studies were made because the proposed lot was for a cell tower and would have less traffic than a residential structure and would be an unnecessary hardship for the applicant to complete. He stated that a waiver request had been made for the front boundary markers because the markers
already existed on the lot and resetting them could lead to errors. He noted that a waiver was requested for a watershed outline because it had previously been completed for the site plan. He stated that soil and wetland information as required by the Wetlands Conservation District had previously been obtained through the applicant’s wetland scientist and as such it was not necessary to repeat the work. He explained that a waiver for the driveway entrance was being requested because the work had been completed at the site plan level. He stated that a waiver request for a dredge and fill permit was made because the applicant did not have any plans to develop the property.
Douglas Hill asked the Board for comments and questions regarding the waiver requests prior to acting on them. David Woodbury asked for confirmation that the majority of the waiver requests were being made based on the information that the work had previously been completed. The Coordinator confirmed that with regard to the smaller lot, detailed plans had been completed. She continued that with regard to the remainder lot as no proposal for development was being made at this time extra detailed plans were typically not required.
Douglas Hill asked for any further comments or questions; there were not any further questions or comments.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the waiver for the elimination of the requirement for
the stone-bounds at the locations where drill holes in boulders are appropriate. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the waiver to avoid having the applicant submit a Traffic, Fiscal, and Environmental Impact Studies document. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the waiver and allow the applicant not to submit a soils map. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the waiver and have the applicant not have to submit the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan based on the fact the subdivided lot has already had one for the cell tower application. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to accept the waiver for the watershed outline and drainage computations. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to accept the waiver for soils information per the Wetlands Conservation District. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to accept the driveway entrance at an eight percent road grade. Discussion: Mark Suennen asked if acceptance of this waiver would mean that a potential driveway on the 50’ strip would be at eight percent. David Woodbury commented that the minutes should reflect that this motion has no bearing on the 50’ strip. Douglas Hill asked that the motion be amended to reflect that the waiver request being approved was for the driveway entrance at an eight percent road grade for the cell tower lot, #6/33-1. Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to accept the driveway entrance at eight percent road grade for the cell tower lot, #6/33-1. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
David Woodbury MOVED to accept the waiver request for a dredge and fill permit and plans for the back lot access. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion. Discussion: Mark Suennen asked that should lot #6/33 come before the Board in the future the waiver would not apply. Douglas Hill pointed out that State approval would be needed for future development across the wetlands. David Woodbury amended his motion to clarify that at some point in the future should lot #6/33 require future development that tonight’s waiver vote shall have no bearing on future action by the Planning Board. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
David Woodbury MOVED that the Board consider the application as complete. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill stated that the Board needed to discuss the back lot frontage for the
proposed lot. He asked the Board for any questions or comments. David Woodbury asked if Bob Todd, LLS, had any input as to why the word “minimum” was removed from the Town’s Zoning Ordinance with regard to 50’ frontage of back lots. David Woodbury commented that he did not draw the same conclusion as the Coordinator that removing the word “minimum” from the 50’ frontage requirement meant that the access to a back lot must be no more and no less than 50’ and that the road frontage must be no more and no less than 50’. He further commented that he did not see how it could be presumed that the voters of the Town would vote something that is almost 100% geometrically impossible to achieve and does not appear to make any sense. He continued that his interpretation
was that the sensible reading of the language meant that the 50’ strip or the road frontage needed to be 50’ but both were not required to be 50’. Douglas Hill stated that he agreed with David Woodbury’s statement and believed that the application could move forward without the 50’ frontage becoming an issue. David Woodbury asked if the Coordinator had spoken with Bob Todd, LLS, regarding this issue. The Coordinator answered that she had not discussed this issue with Bob Todd, LLS. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that logically a 50’ strip was needed to accommodate a driveway to a back lot. He continued that if the requirement was interpreted to mean that frontage of the 50’ strip had to be 50’, no less and no more, it would not work if the access strip happened to be more or less than a 90 degree angle. David Woodbury asked why in 1989 did the concept of having a minimum of a 50’ strip get removed from
the Zoning Ordinance. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he was unaware as to why the word “minimum” was removed and added that he believed that a 50’ strip was needed for a driveway.
Michael Dalhberg, LLS, stated that he conducted a search through the Registry of Deeds and found 12 subdivisions in the Town of New Boston dating back to 1983 that had all had a parallel strip. He explained that whatever the frontage was from the parallel lines it would always be more than 50’. He added that he found only one subdivision, completed by Bob Todd, LLS, that had exactly 50’ of frontage but the strip was 25’ wide. David Woodbury stated that he would like to amend his previous statement that the interpretation should be that either a 50’ frontage or a 50’ strip rather than both to read only a 50’ strip because he realized that the frontage could be much narrower strip.
The Coordinator noted that the reason this issue had been brought up is because of the regulation audit that had been conducted and she noticed that the current language did not make any sense. She continued that the issue did need some thought because the Zoning specifically stated 50’ frontage and the Subdivision Regulations stated that the strip could then be a minimum of 50’ to the body of the lot.
David Woodbury asked how much variance above 50’ could be tolerated for the access strip. The Coordinator stated that the access strip amount has varied over the years because the language stated 'minimally 50’'. David Woodbury stated that was where the issue of road frontage became important because if the 50' strip was actually wider than that in some parts due to the lines not being parallel then a 50' frontage should be held to instead.
Douglas Hill noted that any changes made to the 50’ frontage could not be made for the March 2010 ballot and would need to be addressed for next year.
Douglas Hill asked for any further discussion on this matter; there was no further discussion.
Douglas Hill asked Michael Dalhberg, LLS, for a date for the compliance of the conditions precedent. Michael Dalhberg, LLS, stated 60 days would be sufficient.
David Woodbury MOVED to approve the application of Vista Road, LLC, Major Subdivision/2 Lots, Location: Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/33, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,
including all checklist corrections, notes of waivers granted and any corrections as noted at this
hearing.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the
recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be April 1, 2010, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Board took a ten minute recess prior to the start of the next hearing.
SWINFORD, CHARLES & RACHEL
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: 292 Tucker Mill Road
Tax Map/Lot #2/15
Residential-Agricultural “R-A”
Douglas Hill read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and Charles Swinford.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that a site walk had been completed since the last hearing. He explained that a discussion had taken place as to the completeness of the application and that the applicant had agreed to appear before the Board following the site walk and argue that the Board grant a waiver for an Environmental Impact Study or in the alternative provide a completed study. He continued that in an effort to avoid the applicant having to fill out a new application with additional fees and delay the start of the project a modified Environmental Impact Assessment was completed. He stated that the Environmental Impact Assessment focused on two areas: 1) the stormwater runoff and its impact of the new lot; and 2) the impact of the lot on the non-point source nutrient loading. He noted that the Board had been provided with copies of the Environmental Impact Assessment and offered to answer any questions. He added that the impact upon the watershed by one new lot was
insignificant and did not rise to the level of needing to install expensive BMP’s to mitigate the changes in runoff and non-point pollution.
Bob Todd, LLS, indicated that he had created an overlay of the 37 acre watershed on a copy of the Tax Map. He explained that the sub-watershed would be considered to be built out with the addition of #15/1. He pointed out the location of two conservation easements on both the existing lot and the proposed lot and noted that because of the easements, development on portions of the watershed would be prevented.
Bob Todd, LLS, asked the Board if it was necessary to further explain the proposed plans. Douglas Hill asked if the Board members understood the proposed plan. David Woodbury commented that he would be interested in hearing from Board members that attended the site walk. Douglas Hill asked if it was necessary for the applicant to complete the Environmental Impact Assessment. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that at the previous hearing an accepted application with a condition that an abbreviated Environmental Impact Assessment be provided or suffer the consequences of having the application turned down. Douglas Hill asked if enough critical areas existed to warrant an Environmental Impact Assessment. David Woodbury explained that some of the Board members had been concerned with the potential
for adverse effects to the flowage of the easterly side of the large lot by adding impervious surfaces.
Douglas Hill asked Mark Suennen, who attended the site walk, to advise the Board if there were any issues with the proposed lot. Mark Suennen stated that he did not believe there were any issues with the lot. He stated that at the last hearing the applicant had been granted a conditional acceptance of the application as complete and the need to complete an Environmental Impact Study was to be determined following the site walk. He continued that the applicant and his engineer decided that rather than take a risk that the site walk would determine that the study could not be waived they went ahead and completed one. Douglas Hill asked for Mark Suennen’s input on any other issues at the site walk. Mark Suennen stated that the proposed house site appeared to be reasonable. He noted
that the driveway for the proposed lot was discussed as it ran across the existing lot. He also indicated that the lot line for the proposed lot crossed the existing lot’s septic area. He explained that a condition existed in the deed language for the replacement of the existing septic system at such time as it was necessary to do so entirely upon the lot that it served, #2/15.
Douglas Hill asked if there were any questions or comments regarding the Environmental Impact Assessment. Mark Suennen pointed out that the report determined that there was a post development increase of 1.33 cubic feet per second versus the pre-development peak flow. He continued that in the past the Board had determined that even an increase of 0.10 cubic feet per second increase was an increase and as such needed to be mitigated. Douglas Hill clarified that typically the no increase requirement pertained to new roads. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the increased runoff for the entire lot was 0.56 cubic feet per second. Douglas Hill indicated that he was not concerned with the increase as new road construction was not in question.
Mark Suennen noted that a discussion regarding an infiltration trench took place at the site walk. He asked Bob Todd, LLS, if the location of the proposed infiltration trench would be along the driveway or between the house site and the wetlands. Douglas Hill indicated that a driveway plan had been submitted and the location of the trench was most likely on that plan.
Douglas Hill asked if there were any further questions on the Environmental Impact Assessment; there was no further discussion.
Douglas Hill asked if the applicant was going to install sprinklers. Bob Todd, LLS, answered that the applicant had withdrawn his voluntary statement of installing a sprinkler system and that his addition of the note on the plan was a little hasty.
Douglas Hill asked if the Board had any issues with the configuration of the proposed lot being a back lot. It was Mark Suennen’s opinion that the proposed lot met the definition of a back lot. David Woodbury and Dean Mehlhorn stated that they did not have any issues with the proposed back lot.
Douglas Hill asked Bob Todd, LLS, if the common driveway was divided by the property line. Bob Todd, LLS, indicated that the common driveway was not divided by the property line and that an easement existed. Douglas Hill asked how far the driveway extended onto the existing property before it returned to its own property. Bob Todd, LLS, answered that the driveway extended into the existing property 80’. He pointed out the location of the proposed driveway on the plan. Douglas Hill asked how far the proposed driveway would be from the property line. Bob Todd, LLS, answered that the proposed driveway would be 24’ from the property line. Douglas Hill stated that he did not have any issues with the proposed common driveway. Dean Mehlhorn, David Woodbury, and Mark
Suennen all agreed that they did not have any issues with the proposed common driveway.
Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator if the septic easement had been submitted. The Coordinator indicated that the septic easement had been submitted.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the waiver and not require the applicant to supply a
Locus Map at 1”=500’ and instead accept 1”=2,000’ as acceptable. Dean Mehlhorn
seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the waiver of general information item 2:4a, a Stormwater
Management Plan to be designed and stamped by a professional engineer and instead accept
Bob Todd, LLS’s, credentials as a professional Certified Erosion and Sediment Control professional for the development of the Stormwater Management Plan. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the waiver and to not require the checklist items #36, 37, 38, 43, 44, and 45 as part of this application. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dean Mehlhorn MOVED to approve the driveway permit for Charles and Rachel Swinford, Tucker Mill Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/15-1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District with the standard Planning Board requirements and noting the NFPA requirement for construction of the shared portion of the driveway. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator to advise the Board on the offsite road improvements. The Coordinator advised that when a subdivision south of this property was completed an offsite road improvement fee was taken to apply adjustments to the knoll at the intersection of Tucker Mill Road and Dougherty Lane. She noted that no improvements had been completed and the Road Agent did not intend to undertake any improvements at this time. She pointed out that offsite road improvements were usually discussed for major subdivisions and because the remainder of this property could potentially be developed into a major subdivision it was prudent to discuss. Mark Suennen suggested that should the remainder of lot #2/15 be subdivided, offsite road improvements may be applicable at that time. Douglas
Hill and Dean Mehlhorn agreed with Mark Suennen’s statement.
The Coordinator advised that the common driveway declaration had been forwarded to Counsel and the Board was awaiting a response. Mark Suennen asked if the applicant would accept any changes that counsel may suggest. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he did not foresee any problems.
David Woodbury MOVED to approve the Major Subdivision Plan of Land of Charles M. and Rachel L. B. Swinford, Tax Map/Lot #2/15, 2 Lots, Tucker Mill Road, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,
including all checklist corrections, notes of waivers granted and any corrections as noted at this hearing and including addition of the level spreader on the ISWMP for Tax Map/Lot #2/15-1.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations, Section IV-F, 3.
4. Receipt of Town Counsel's approval of the Declaration of Common Driveway Easement and submission of an executed copy of same for recording at the HCRD.
5. Approved Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans may be
resubmitted as the final Individual Stormwater Management Plans at the time of application for a building permit provided the builder complies with those plans. If critical areas are to be disturbed beyond those shown on the Pre-Engineered Individual Stormwater Management Plans, revised Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be prepared and submitted for approval. If the Pre-Engineered Stormwater Management Plans are not to be used at the time of application for a building permit new Individual Stormwater Management Plans shall be submitted for approval. In any event, the bonds for the Individual Stormwater Management Plans must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit
6. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
7. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the
Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be April 1, 2010, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
LOCUS FIELD, LLC
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/NRSPR/Condominium
Location: Kettle Lane & Salisbury Road
Tax Map/Lot #13/15-4
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Douglas Hill read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and Rob Starace.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the proposed lot was one of nine lots that were previously approved as a duplex lot subdivision. He indicated that the proposed lot was the next to last one to be developed and was located at the intersection of Salisbury Road and Kettle Lane. He pointed to the plan and explained that the dwelling would be constructed on the most buildable area of the lot. He also pointed out the location of considerable wetlands on the southern area of the property.
Douglas Hill asked if the dwelling had been constructed. Bob Todd, LLS, answered that the project was substantially complete and was being prepared for sale.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that Kettle Lane had been accepted as a road and an application for lot #4-a, and #4-b, had been submitted. He indicated that the dwellings were almost identical.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the location of the wells would be on each side of the limited common area boundary. He indicated that State subdivision approval had been obtained as well approval for septic systems.
Douglas Hill noted that a request for a waiver of the Traffic, Fiscal, and Environmental had been submitted. He asked for any issues with the requested waivers; there were no issues.
David Woodbury MOVED to approve the waivers for the Traffic, Fiscal, and Environmental Impact Studies. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Board agreed that a site walk was not necessary for the proposed lot.
The Coordinator pointed out that after review of the plan it was determined that clarification needed to be made that two separate driveways existed for the proposed lot as it stated a shared driveway existed. Douglas Hill asked if the clarification could be made as part of the conditions precedent. The Coordinator answered that the change could be added as a condition precedent.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the application for Locus Field, LLC, Location: Salisbury Road and Kettle Lane, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-4, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill asked Bob Todd, LLS, for a date certain for the conditions precedent. Bob Todd, LLS, indicated that three months would be a sufficient amount of time.
Douglas Hill asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board or audience; there were no further questions or comments.
Mark Suennen MOVED to approve the condex site plan for Locus Field, LLC, Location: Salisbury Rod and Kettle Lane, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-4, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the
checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Submission of any outstanding fees and the fees for recording at the HCRD.
4. Submission of revised Declaration of Condominium.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be May 1, 2010, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Board took a twelve minute recess prior to the next hearing.
LEMAY, VICTOR & LISE S.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/9 Lots
Location: Wilson Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #9/21-5
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Douglas Hill read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Brian Pratt, PE, Tim LeClair, Clifton LaBree, Bob Todd, LLS, Donna Hughes and Diane Boutin.
Brian Pratt, PE, stated that he had previously appeared before the Board for a conceptual meeting and design review. He also indicated that a site walk had been completed.
Brian Pratt, PE, advised the Board that he would give a brief synopsis of the project and changes that had been made since the last hearing. He stated that the project was located on Tax Map/Lot # 9/21-5 off Wilson Hill Road. He noted that the property was surrounded by conservation land to the south and east. He indicated that the parcel was 29 acres and consisted of mostly upland with a few wetland areas. He stated that the applicant proposed to subdivide the land into 9 residential building lots as well as construct a 1,000’ road that included a cul-de-sac. He noted that all of the proposed lots would be served by wells and septic systems. He indicated that 7 of the lots ranged between 2 and 3 acres in size and 2 of the lots would be backlots of over 5 acres. He advised
that subdivision permits and wetlands permits had been obtained from DES. He stated that one retention pond and one level spreader existed on the site for stormwater management.
Douglas Hill asked if there would be any additional flow coming off the property. Brian Pratt, PE, answered that there was no additional flow and that the peak flow had been reduced. He added that there was some infiltration with the retention pond.
Brian Pratt, PE, explained that one of the lots had a driveway easement and pointed out its location on the plan. He noted after discussions with the Board on the site walk regarding the easement a poll was conducted that revealed the members were in favor of the proposed easement. He stated that the applicant was not requesting any waivers or variances. He advised that a house under construction on lot #2 was nearing completion. He indicated that Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies were completed. He noted that he had received a review from the Planning Office and he did not have any issues with the proposed changes.
Brian Pratt, PE, asked the Board for any questions or comments. Douglas Hill noted that all items pertaining to the checklist had been submitted. He asked the Coordinator if items were still missing from the Stormwater Management Plan. The Coordinator advised that any items that were missing were included in the review comments that were sent to the applicant and could be addressed at a later time. Douglas Hill noted that access without involving 15% slopes may be difficult with regard to the ISWMP for lot #5. Brian Pratt, PE, stated that an area existed that was slightly over 15%, however, there was enough room to get around that area. Douglas Hill asked if a driveway ran through the area. Brian Pratt, PE, noted that he had not designed a driveway but noted that there was enough
room to construct a driveway in the area with disruption. The Coordinator advised that the definition of a critical area was disturbance within 20’ of a side lot line and as such the lots should be reviewed. Brian Pratt, PE, stated that he would review the critical areas to the two backlots.
Douglas Hill stated that a driveway permit had not been submitted for lot #1 and a driveway location had not been established on the plans. Brian Pratt, PE, advised that when he revised thd plans he would include the driveway apron location for lot #1. He added that access to the driveway would be off the new road.
The Coordinator stated that at the time discussion occurred with regard to construction on lot #2 it was presented that the existing road was going to be used as the entrance to the new road. She continued that the Board had stated that when road construction began, the driveway could no longer be at that location as the road would be under construction. She stated there was no mention in the plan as to how and where the driveway will be moved. Brian Pratt, PE, indicated that a temporary lot easement could be created next to the right-of-way on lot #1. Douglas Hill asked if grading would be affected. Brian Pratt, PE, noted that there should not be any issues as the land was flat in the proposed area. He added that language could be added to the temporary easement that when the road and
the driveway were completed the easement would be dissolved. The Coordinator advised that a temporary permit would need to be obtained for the location off Wilson Hill Road.
Douglas Hill asked if the wetlands crossing bond was separate or included in the road bond estimate. Brian Pratt, PE, stated that he believed everything was included in the road bond estimate. He verified that the estimate was included in the road bond estimate.
Douglas Hill asked Mark Suennen if he had any questions or comments with regard to the Traffic Impact Study. Mark Suennen stated that the study met the conditions for what the Board required as a limited study. He indicated that 30% of the traffic was designated to go from Wilson Hill Road to Bedford Road. He continued that the other 70% of the traffic would flow to River Road. He noted that there was no mention of what the traffic impact at River Road and Byam Road would be. Brian Pratt, PE, stated that the intersection of River Road and Byam Road was not studied as it was not considered to have any issues. The Coordinator advised that she was awaiting information from the Road Agent with regard to offsite road improvements to Byam Road. Douglas Hill stated that he was unsure how to
proceed with this matter without the information from the Road Agent. Mark Suennen stated that the applicant had determined that a 30% directional distribution to Wilson Hill Road/Bedford Road represented a 5% increase to the total traffic at that intersection and, therefore, a recommendation had been made that the applicant submit a 5% contribution for the offsite road improvements at that intersection. Douglas Hill asked the Brian Pratt, PE, for confirmation that it was the applicant’s position that the offsite road improvement contribution was not necessary for the Byam Road/River Road intersection. Brian Pratt, PE, answered that they did not have an opinion currently and would be willing to discuss with the Board. Douglas Hill advised that the Road Agent would supply the Board with an amount for offsite road improvements for Byam Road for discussion at a later date.
Douglas Hill asked for comments or questions regarding the Fiscal or Environmental Impact Study. Mark Suennen pointed out that the Environmental Impact Study showed a decrease in the flow.
Douglas Hill asked if the concrete pad issue had been resolved. Brian Pratt, PE, advised that that area along with the abutting property was part of the right-of-way. He added that there may be some impact because of grading. Mark Suennen pointed out that the Town would now own a portion of that area and it would no longer be part of lot 9.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the application for Tax Map/Lot #9/21-5 as complete.
David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill stated that a Conditional Use Permit had been submitted for the wetland crossing, road construction, and driveway construction on lot #3. He advised that the applicant had received approval from DES. He asked the Board for any comments or questions with regard to the permit; there were no comments or questions.
David Woodbury MOVED to approve the Conditional Use Permit. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill invited the audience to ask any questions or give comments.
Clifton LaBree of 126 Wilson Hill Road stated that he was disappointed with the
development of the proposed lots.
Diane Boutin of 96 Wilson Hill Road asked for assurance that dust control measures would be in place for the construction of the new road as it was adjacent to her pool. Tim LeClair stated that it was his intention to do the best he could do to make the road construction as pleasant as possible. Diane Boutin asked if water trucks would be used for dust control. Douglas Hill answered that water trucks were a standard during road construction. Mark Suennen asked if a note could be added to the road plan specifically stating that there will be dust control management. Brian Pratt, PE, stated that he would voluntarily add such a note.
The Coordinator stated that submittal of $3,500.00 would start the road plan review with the Town Engineer. She continued that a full set of plans would also be required to be sent to the Town Engineer. She advised that the Town Engineer would be in contact with the applicant directly, however, the Planning Office would need to be copied on all correspondence. She also advised that a full size set of the plans was needed for Town Counsel.
Diane Boutin asked if an additional meeting was going to be scheduled regarding traffic control. Douglas Hill answered that another meeting would not be scheduled to discuss traffic. Diane Boutin asked if there were any plans for traffic lights to be installed at the intersection of Wilson Hill Road and Bedford Road. Douglas Hill answered that the Town would be responsible for any changes to the intersection and the applicant would be required to contribute their fair share of the project. David Woodbury stated that about five years ago discussion occurred with the then owner of the property at the Wilson Hill Road/Bedford Road intersection to move the existing stonewall back about 100’ to improve the sight line for cars that would be taking a left turn off
Wilson Hill Road. He noted that the proposed work did not include a traffic light.
Douglas Hill asked if there were any further questions or comments; there were none.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the hearing to February 23, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator to explain the process of making Mark Suennen a full member of the Planning Board. The Coordinator read from the regulations and advised the Board that Mark Suennen could be appointed as a full member until such a time when the Planning Board could recommend to the Board of Selectmen that he permanently fill the vacancy.
Douglas Hill MOVED to appoint Mark Suennen permanently to the Planning Board until the Selectmen decided to appoint him as a full member; and that a request be sent to the Selectmen to appoint Mark Suennen as a full member. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
David Woodbury MOVED to adjourn at 9:35 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted, Minutes Approved:
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk as amended 02/23/10
| 
