TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of January 12, 2010 Meeting
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Peter Hogan, Don Duhaime, and Douglas Hill, 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 Jon Willard, Brian Towne, Dennis McKenney, LLS, Don Chapman, Jay Marden, Ken Lombard, Michael Dalhberg, LLS, Sandra Martel, and Catherine Przekaza.
Update re: Planning Board Goals of 2009 and discussion re: Planning Board Goals for 2010
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He asked the Coordinator to advise the Board of the status of the Planning Board’s goals for 2009. The Coordinator advised the Board of the following as goals that had been completed for 2009 as well as 2009 goals that needed to be completed:
- Subdivision Regulation updates: Outlet Grate – ready to be adopted
- Small Scale Planned Commercial District: Proposal to rezone parcels to commercial – for work in 2010
- Design Guidelines – ready for public hearing
- Small Scale Planned Commercial District: Parking and Signage Amendments – for work in 2010
- The Source Water Protection Plan – plan not adopted – zoning changes proposed
- Driveway Regulations – ready for public hearing
- Workforce/Multi-Family Housing: Overlay District completed
- Cistern Regulations: Require review and update to accommodate Fire Wards’ decision to accept Michie Corp. pre-cast cisterns.
- Mixed Use/Village District: Will be addressed in 2010.
- Other Zoning Districts: Proposals and recommendations from the Master Plan that will be addressed in 2010.
- Storm Water Management Regulations: Review in light of AOT Rule changes.
The Coordinator stated that she had put together a list of suggested projects for 2010. She noted that the Board could choose to add or remove projects. She continued that the Water Resources Management Plan had not been updated since its adoption in 1989. She explained that the updates required outside assistance and currently funding was not available. She stated that the Planning Board could consider the remaining recommendations from the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee. She explained that the Master Plan is updated every five years and the next required update would take place in 2011. She added that in 2010 the Board should start discussing how the Master Plan would be updated for 2011. She further added that the Planning Commission would be contacting the Planning
Board to update the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
David Woodbury asked if a legislative mandate existed requiring an update to the Master Plan every five years. The Coordinator answered that the five year review was a suggestion and not a mandate. The Chairman asked how the last update to the Master Plan occurred. The Coordinator replied that a full scale re-write was completed because an update had not been done since 1997. She explained that the Town conducted a community profile called New Boston Speaks. She continued that New Boston Speaks was a weekend event where the community gathered to create ideas and suggestions for the Town. She noted that several committees were formed as a result. She stated that the Master Plan Committee was formed and spent two years working on the most recent update to the Master Plan.
The Chairman asked if the only remaining item to be completed for the Road Standards was the outlet grate detail. The Coordinator replied yes. The Chairman further asked that once the outlet grate detail was completed would the next step be a hearing and vote. The Coordinator answered yes and added that a hearing would be scheduled at the completion of all the Subdivision Regulation items for the purpose of holding one hearing.
The Chairman asked for a status update of the cistern regulations. The Coordinator advised that Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, and Kevin Leonard, P.E., needed to work together to identify what requirements needed to change in the Subdivision Regulations to allow for the pre-cast concrete cisterns. Don Duhaime stated that the cistern project was on the CIP schedule and noted that any issues should be resolved. The Coordinator clarified that the cistern Don Duhaime referred to was for the downtown cistern project.
The Chairman asked the Board for any comments or questions. David Woodbury asked the Coordinator to restate the goals from 2009 that needed to be carried forward to 2010. The Coordinator stated that items that are completed and ready for adoption are Road Standards, the Driveway Regulations, the Design Guidelines, and the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Overlay District. She continued that the items that needed to be completed were the Small Scale Planned Commercial District proposal to rezone parcels as commercial as well as review of the parking and signage, and the Cistern Regulations. She indicated that ongoing projects that would be moved forward to 2010 were the review of the Mixed Use/Village District, review of the Future Land Use Chapter with regard to Zoning, and the Storm Water
Management Regulations.
David Woodbury asked if 2009’s unfinished business would be placed at the head of the 2010 list of goals. The Coordinator answered yes.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to contact Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, to remind him of the Cistern Regulations.
The Chairman asked the Board for questions or comments.
Mark Suennen asked the Coordinator to define the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Coordinator explained that the Hazard Mitigation Plan reviewed the natural hazards that could affect New Boston such as floods, ice storms, and earthquakes. She continued that previous years’ events were reviewed to estimate costs in the case of future events. She also noted that the Plan contained a list of goals for things to be done and suggested whose responsibility it was to get those items completed. The Chairman asked if the Plan was to be completed through the grant money. The Coordinator answered that the work would be completed by grant that the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission had received.
David Woodbury asked if the status of Earth Removal Regulations would be discussed this evening. The Coordinator answered that the Earth Removal Regulations would be discussed at the next meeting.
The Chairman stated that the Design Guidelines were updated to include comments from the Board and with regard to Counsel’s issues. He continued that the next step would be to schedule a public hearing noting that three items needed to be discussed prior to the hearing.
The Chairman asked the Board for any further comments or questions; there were no further comments or questions.
The Chairman identified the three items for discussion with regard to the Design Guidelines as moving the requirement for the following three items to the Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations: (1) a landscaping plan; (2) a lighting plan; and (3) location and appearance of signs.
The Chairman asked if anyone believed that the aforementioned items should not be incorporated in the Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations.
Mark Suennen stated that he was not excited about a lighting plan prepared by a qualified professional. He believed that an electrician should be overseeing internal lighting. Douglas Hill asked if the definition of a qualified professional would include engineers. Mark Suennen stated that it depended on what the Board was going to require a qualified professional to be. Don Duhaime stated that the intent of this section was to address exterior lighting. Mark Suennen suggested that the exterior lighting would be wired from the interior of the building. Douglas Hill asked if the Board intended on requiring a specific engineer. Don Duhaime stated that this section was intended to limit light pollution so that areas would not be over lit. Peter Hogan stated that a good example
of a property that limits light pollution was David Craig’s property on River Road. He explained that the lighting only lights the driveway and nothing beyond. Mark Suennen believed that the current language did not express the intent to light specific areas and prevent spill over. Peter Hogan suggested writing specifically what the Board was seeking. The Chairman stated that he envisioned the lighting and landscaping plans to show how the guidelines were being addressed. Douglas Hill pointed out that the plans were advisory. The Chairman asked Mark Suennen to explain what he believed a lighting plan was. Mark Suennen described a parking lot with stand alone poles. He continued that the poles would need to be powered and cabled. He added that fixtures for the poles and light distribution from the poles would need to be addressed. The Chairman believed that the lighting plan would only include the fixtures and light
distribution that Mark Suennen described. Mark Suennen argued that the lighting plan would include all of his examples, stating that it would not matter what kind of distribution was used if the power was not going to be addressed. Don Duhaime pointed out the issues of powering the light would be the responsibility of the Building Department. He continued that the intent of this section was to find a qualified professional that would bring the right type of environment to the Town. Mark Suennen questioned why he should be prevented from providing site lighting just because he was not a qualified professional. The Chairman questioned how the Board would confirm that he was providing the site lighting correctly. Mark Suennen stated that the Board would be unable to confirm whether or not he was providing the site lighting correctly. He pointed out that a qualified professional would be unable to provide for what the Board was wanted because
the plan was unclear. Peter Hogan stated that an engineer would need to follow a guideline provided by the Board.
The Chairman asked Mark Suennen how he would change the current language. Mark Suennen stated that he would define what minimizing spillover was and what acceptable and unacceptable lighting was. Peter Hogan suggested stating that a specified amount of light would not be permitted to extend beyond property lines of the parcel. The Chairman pointed out that the current guidelines provide for Peter Hogan’s suggestion.
The Chairman asked if Mark Suennen had the same issues with the landscaping plan. Mark Suennen replied that he believed the landscaping plan was more standardized and straightforward. He continued that lighting technology changes every six months. Don Duhaime asked if Mark Suennen believed more lighting would be provided under the current plan than what the Board had intended. Mark Suennen answered that unless the Board’s intent was specifically defined they may not be provided with what they were seeking. The Chairman asked if Mark Suennen was referring to information contained in the plan or the end result of the lighting. Mark Suennen answered both the information contained in the plan and the end result of the lighting.
The Chairman asked Mark Suennen if he believed that a qualified professional should be required to prepare a landscaping plan. Mark Suennen believed the requirement was unnecessary. Mark Suennen stated that a landscaping plan prepared by a landscaping professional should be required for properties that are to be landscaped. He continued that not all site plans should be required to have a landscaping plan.
The Chairman asked the Board for comments with regard to requiring the location and appearance of signs to be noted in materials presented during the site plan review; there were no further comments.
The Chairman asked to have the topics previously discussed on the next meeting’s agenda so that a public hearing could be scheduled for the first meeting in February.
The Chairman suspended the discussion.
Public Hearing on the changes and additions to the proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as effected by the first public hearing.
The Chairman stated that at the previous hearing most of the amendments had been voted on to move forward to the ballot. He continued that several amendments had changes made at that meeting and were ready for review and vote this evening.
The Chairman noted that the first change made to proposed amendment #1 was to remove Conditional Use Permits and replace with Standards. He continued that the second change provided for price caps with regard to sale of the workforce housing units. He stated that the third change required that notification to provide workforce housing shall be submitted with the application. He noted that the last change added a section for Waivers of Specific and General Conditions for a “Workforce Housing” project.
Jon Willard arrived at the meeting.
The Chairman asked the Board for comments or questions; there were no further comments or questions.
The Chairman advised the Board that they could vote to send the amendment to the ballot as is or vote not to send the amendment to ballot as is.
David Woodbury stated that the Coordinator had created the changes to the amendments based on Dwight D. Sowerby, Esq.’s, recent letter and, therefore, she must be satisfied with the current language.
The Chairman asked for any further questions or comments from the Board. The Board agreed to move forward with a vote.
David Woodbury MOVED that amendment #1 be proposed as presented at this public hearing for a ballot vote in March 2010. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED.
The Chairman stated that the change made to proposed amendment #14 added a term definition for Home Occupation.
The Chairman asked the Board for questions or comments. Peter Hogan asked for the definition of Home Occupation. The Coordinator indicated that the definition could be located in Open Space Development Standards, Section 401.2, F. David Woodbury clarified that the definition of Home Occupation was not amended only a pointer to where to find the section was added.
David Woodbury MOVED that amendment #14 be proposed as presented at this public
Hearing for a ballot vote in March 2010. Douglas Hill seconded the motion. Discussion:
Peter Hogan asked what the difference was between Home Occupation and those businesses not required to undergo site plan review in the R-A District. The Coordinator answered that the two were similar, however, prior to the Home Occupation definition no home business was allowed in a cluster or Open Space Development. She continued that when the section pertaining to Open Space Subdivisions was updated in the Zoning two years ago the people working on the section wanted to allow a minor type of home occupation to take place in that kind of subdivision. Peter Hogan believed that Home Occupation should be defined in the R-A District. He noted that Home Business and Home Occupation are often confused. The Chairman stated that Peter Hogan’s concerns would be addressed at a future time. The motion PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to give the Board a synopsis of the Driveway Regulation updates. The Coordinator stated that the issue of erosion control and the use of stump grindings with regard to driveways was never formally decided upon. She indicated that it might be necessary to specify that the Board did not consider them a suitable erosion control method. She stated that another issue that needed to be resolved was ensuring that an applicant would seek approval for driveway extensions. She explained that if the house and driveway locations were shown on the subdivision plan then the applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board to make any changes. She continued that it was not reasonable to require everyone to show a house and entire driveway location on a plan
because it may not be known. She noted that the Board had previously dealt with issue during the Clark Hill Trust Subdivision by requiring Storm Water Management Plans (SWMP). She added that the Driveway Regulations allowed for the Board to also require engineered driveway plans. She stated that the engineered driveway plans could contain notes requiring that the plans be updated if a driveway was extended beyond that shown at approval.
Douglas Hill stated that he was unhappy with the two options presented. The Coordinator advised that should no issues arise following a site walk that would require an engineered plan or a driveway Storm Water Management Plans SWMP the applicant would not need to appear before the Board in the future for changes. Douglas Hill sought clarification that the only two options were: any new subdivision plan would need to identify the locations of the house and driveway; or, every driveway would have to have an engineered driveway plan. The Coordinator clarified that only the driveways under the Driveway Regulations that would ordinarily be required to have those plans and the question was then if any change was going to be made to the location due to the trickiness of the lot deciding whether or not to
continue to have only the Building Department review the changes or have the Planning Board involved.
Douglas Hill believed that current practices with regard to changes to driveways were satisfactory and should not be changed.
The Chairman asked for the comments from the Board.
Peter Hogan stated that he also believed the current practices with regard to changes to driveways were appropriate. He continued that when issues arose with critical areas the Board currently requires that the applicant show the location of the house and driveways. Don Duhaime, Dean Mehlhorn, and David Woodbury believed no changes should be made. Mark Suennen was unsure and did not give his opinion with regard to this matter. The Chairman stated that this issue would be tabled at this point.
The Chairman noted that the issue of stump grindings needed to be discussed. Peter Hogan stated that evidence that stump grindings are a permanent erosion control material had not been found. The Chairman stated that the Board needed to read the material with regard to stump grindings that the Coordinator had provided prior to the next meeting. Peter Hogan stated that he believed the issue was dead because research has not been provided that stump grindings were permanent. The Chairman stated that it was the Board’s opinion that the documents referenced in the regulations were clear on the stump grindings issues and it would not be further discussed.
The Board took a five minute recess at 7:25 p.m. to review the addendum relative to the following hearing.
TOWNES FAMILY TRUST
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: South Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #13/55
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He noted that the application was accepted as complete at the December 8, 2009, with the caveat that the SWMP and the Impact Studies may be required following the Board’s site walk. He added that the deadline for Board action was February 11, 2010. He stated that a complete set of waiver requests was received via facsimile on January 9, 2010. He also noted that some outstanding issues were also addressed in the facsimile. He advised that the Board needed to act on a driveway application this evening.
The Chairman stated that a site walk had been conducted on December 19, 2009. He stated that the driveway was going to be about an 8% slope that would parallel an existing driveway on an adjacent lot. The Chairman noted his concern that the applicant get a negative slope off the road consistent with the Driveway Regulations. He asked if the applicant would like to address the Board with any changes. Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that he would be happy to go through the issues contained with in his fax. The Chairman wanted to address the necessity of a Certified Erosion Control and Sediment Plan. Douglas Hill asked the Chairman if he believed that a Certified Erosion Control and Sediment Plan was required following the site walk. The Chairman did not believe the Plan was necessary. The Coordinator noted that the driveway for the back lot required that a Certified Erosion Control and Sediment Plan be completed if the driveway was 20’ within the side lot line. The Chairman
changed his opinion and believed that a Certified Erosion Control and Sediment Plan should be required to address any issues with the 8% slope driveway during construction. Douglas Hill asked if the plan would be required for the entire driveway or only the critical 8% area. Dennis McKenney, LLS, located the driveway on the plan and identified the area of the driveway that had an 8% slope. Douglas Hill asked the Chairman if he would be comfortable allowing the applicant to provide a Certified Erosion Control and Sediment Plan for the 8% slope area of the driveway. The Chairman agreed that only the critical area needed the Plan.
The Chairman stated that he did not believe that the applicant should be required to provide Traffic, Environmental, or Fiscal Impact Studies and the waiver granted at the first hearing was, therefore, still in effect.
Douglas Hill MOVED to require Townes Family Trust, Major Subdivision/2 Lots Location: South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/55, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to supply a Certified Erosion Control and Sediment Plan for the driveway to the back lot, only for the section where it comes within 20’ of the
abutting property. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the applicant was requesting a waiver to utilize rebar rather than granite for the monuments. Douglas Hill asked if the use of rebar would be for the back lot monuments. Dennis McKenney, LLS, clarified that all monument locations would be constructed of rebar. The Coordinator advised the Board that per the Subdivision Regulations the front monuments were required to be granite. Douglas Hill stated that he did not have an issue with the applicant’s waiver request. The Chairman asked the applicant to identify the monument locations on the map. Dennis McKenney, LLS, pointed out the location on the monuments. Don Duhaime, Peter Hogan, and David Woodbury did not have an issue with the applicant’s waiver request.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waiver request for the use of rebar for the monument locations as indicated in checklist #13 in Dennis McKenney, LLS’s, facsimile dated January 9, 2010. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the applicant wanted to waive the requirement of using tick
marks to indicate the bearings and distances on the proposed plan. He noted that this was the first time an applicant had preferred not to use the tick marks. He asked the applicant to show on the plan what issue would be created by adding the tick marks. Dennis McKenney, LLS, indicated on the plan where the tick marks would be placed. He stated that the tick marks showed where a particular line would start and stop. He continued that the plan would end up having lines all over it making it less legible. The Chairman stated that he was inclined to not approve the waiver because the Planning Office deemed the tick marks necessary. Douglas Hill asked the applicant if there were any other reasons why he did not want to use the tick marks other than what he had already explained. Dennis
McKenney, LLS, stated that adding the tick marks would mean additional time and expense to the applicant. He continued that all the information that was on the plan would allow for an attorney to create a proper description of the property. He added that the plan was to scale and anyone could readily scale off distances. He stated that the Planning staff would have no way of knowing if the bearings and distances on the plan were accurate. He further stated that his stamp and signature on the plan ensured that a proper legal description was provided. Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator for her opinion on the matter. The Coordinator stated that quite often where the tick marks are shown she had been able to identify missing bearings and distances. Dennis McKenney, LLS, advised that he would be unable to provide accurate acreage figures unless he had all the lines properly connected and labeled. Douglas Hill stated that he would not
approve the request. David Woodbury noted that
for purposes of consistency for future use he would like to see the tick marks added to the plan. Don Duhaime agreed with David Woodbury’s statement.
It was the Board’s opinion that tick marks be required on the plan.
The Coordinator explained that the applicant was requesting to not be required to map the entire subdivision as their data demonstrated that ample area existed on each lot for residential development. Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that at the first hearing it was his understanding that the requirement to map every inch of the large parcel would be eliminated if the applicant could demonstrate that areas existed on both lots for the 200’ square and suitable test perc results. He continued that the requirements for residential development were met on both lots. Douglas Hill agreed with Dennis McKenney.
The Chairman asked for any other opinions from the Board. Don Duhaime stated that he did not have an opinion one way or the other. Peter Hogan stated that he would accept the waiver.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waiver request to checklist item #37 in Dennis McKenney, LLS’s, facsimile dated January 9, 2010. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to explain an issue that pertained to checklist item # 38 in Dennis McKenney, LLS’s, facsimile dated January 9, 2009. The Coordinator stated that at the preliminary hearing Dennis McKenney, LLS, had asked if the applicant was required to mark the wetlands and provide topography. She continued that Douglas Hill did not believe that the entire 80 acres needed to be marked and that Peter Hogan had indicated that the applicant could request a waiver. She stated that the applicant was now requesting that waiver. She added that Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that he had demonstrated that each proposed lot could be developed for residential construction under current New Boston zoning. She noted that the Zoning Ordinance in the Wetlands District requires 1.5
acres of contiguous upland to be considered a residential lot or be a residential area on a larger lot. She advised that the applicant did not provide any information that stated there was 1.5 acres of contiguous upland in the areas that have been mapped. Dennis McKenney, LLS, indicated that he could add a statement that would express that 1.5 acres of contiguous upland existed on the mapped areas. Douglas Hill stated that by Dennis McKenney, LLS, adding the aforementioned language the issue would be resolved. Dennis McKenney, LLS, indicated that he would also show a 255’ square on each lot in addition to the addition of the language.
Don Chapman asked if, rather than having to show the 255’ square on each lot, a statement would be sufficient on the basis that the new square could restrict the future of development. Peter Hogan clarified that the Board was not asking for a building square to be provided. Douglas Hill added that the Board was asking for the applicant to verify that there was 1.5 acres of contiguous upland. Dennis McKenney, LLS, clarified that Don Chapman was asking if the applicant wanted to build 500’ away from the square would they be required to appear before the Board. Don Chapman added that there were no plans for development on the property and that the applicant was simply preserving the view, however, he was concerned with future development. The Chairman added that the applicant was
providing proof that a legal lot could be created that would meet all of the Town’s requirements.
The Chairman asked the applicant what was missing from the Watershed Outline. Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that he had not created a Watershed Outline. He continued that he was unsure of what information the Board was seeking. He added that the property eventually drained into the Piscataquog River. The Coordinator indicated that Watershed Outlines typically applied to larger subdivision with regard to drainage.
Peter Hogan MOVED to waive checklist item #53 in Dennis McKenney, LLS’s,
facsimile dated January 9, 2010. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman noted that the dredge and fill waiver was no longer applicable due to revision of the proposed boundary of the new lot.
The Chairman advised the applicant that the bearings and distance tick marks needed to be added to the plan. He continued that the demonstration of the 1.5 acres of contiguous upland needed to be provided as well as the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the area of the driveway within 20' of the side lot lines.
Dennis McKenney, LLS, asked if a checklist existed within the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to the Certified Erosion Control and Sediment Plan. The Coordinator indicated that Section V-V of the Subdivision Regulations contained all the details regarding these plans and there was also a checklist. It was Dennis McKenney, LLS’s, understanding that a digital copy of the subdivision plan needed to be provided. The Coordinator answered yes and noted that the type of digital copy needed to be either [AUTOCAD.dxf or AUTOCAD.dwg]. Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that he could provide the required digital copies but he would not provide a copy with his stamp. He explained that it was possible for someone to modify the digital copy. He added that he would provide a Mylar paper copy with
his signature and stamp. The Coordinator stated that he could submit a copy of the plan unstamped because it was simply a copy for the Tax-Mapper.
Dennis McKenney, LLS, asked if he could be scheduled for the next hearing on January 26, 2010. The Chairman noted that the Board did not look favorably on applicants who schedule too early and arrive without having completed everything. Dennis McKenney, LLS, thought that the first meeting in February would be more appropriate. The Chairman noted that new information and revised plans, etc., had to be submitted 7 days prior to the meeting.
David Woodbury MOVED to adjourn the Townes Family Trust, Major Subdivision/2 Lots, Location: South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/55, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to February 9, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Informational Session with Vista Road, LLC, to discuss options re: frontage and potential subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #6/33, Wilson Hill Road.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Michael Dahlberg, LLS, and Sandra Martel of Vista Road, LLC. The Chairman explained that because this was an informational session the Board was limited to review of the basic concepts, consultation that is not binding, and proposals can only be discussed in conceptual form.
The Chairman stated that the applicant was attempting to subdivide 5 acres off a large lot for an approved cell tower. He noted that the lot was located on a Class VI road, therefore, not meeting the Town’s frontage requirements for building or subdividing. He continued that a variance from the ZBA was requested and denied. He added that an application for a rehearing was also denied.
Michael Dalhberg, LLS, stated that the applicant sought to add legal frontage to the proposed lot and create a 50’ back lot for the remainder on Wilson Hill Road. He noted access would be through the 50’ strip. Michael Dalhberg, LLS, noted that the lot layout was a little out of the ordinary and stated that because 2/3rds of the remainder would be behind the cell tower lot he was asking if the Board thought the layout was approvable.
Michael Dalhberg, LLS, stated that the Coordinator had advised that in the past the Planning Board would want to see an engineered crossing and dredge and fill permit to prove the access was viable. He pointed to the map to show in order for development to occur on the front section of the property crossings would need to be designed due to the extent of the wetlands. He further added that the applicant did not have any plans to design crossings and would request a waiver. He noted that with a dredge and fill permit a driveway could be constructed but that the applicant had no plans for development. He stated that in order to access the cell tower lot wetlands would need to be crossed. He noted that the State would look to minimize the impact on the wetlands and continued that it was
unreasonable to presume that 139 acres could not be accessed by a crossing at some point. He noted that the applicant faced the risk that if a crossing on the lot was denied there would be no access because wetlands run the entire length of the property. Then the applicant could appeal any such decision to the ZBA or State as appropriate.
The Chairman stated that the applicant was seeking to create a lot and a back lot. He clarified that the lot being created was actually only a back lot because there was not any frontage for the front lot. Michael Dalhberg, LLS, agreed with the Chairman.
Douglas Hill asked where the Class V road ended. Michael Dalhberg, LLS, pointed to the map for the location. Douglas Hill noted that the 50’ frontage for the back lot was on a Class V road. Michael Dalhberg, LLS, answered that it was. The Chairman asked if a road could be constructed along the 50’. Michael Dalhberg, LLS, replied that it could and suggested that an easement may be requested for access.
The Chairman asked the Board for questions or comments.
David Woodbury stated that he was interested in the future subdivision prospects for the lot. It was his understanding that back lots could not be further subdivided. The Coordinator stated that it depended on the size of the lot with regard to further subdividing. She continued that the 50’ strip could be used to gain access to the main portion of the back lot and further subdivide. David Woodbury asked if the 50’ strip could become a public road with the potential for developing the lots. The Coordinator answered yes. The Chairman asked for reasoning of why the applicant did not deem David Woodbury’s scenario as plausible. Michael Dalhberg, LLS, stated that Town may not view the lot as buildable because it exceeded 25% in some parts.
The Chairman asked the Board for any further questions or comments; there were no further questions or comments. He then asked the public for any questions or comments; there were no questions or comments from the public.
The Chairman asked if the applicant was seeking the Board’s general thoughts on the proposed lot. Michael Dalhberg, LLS, answered yes. Douglas Hill asked what the applicant was attempting to accomplish. Michael Dalhberg, LLS, responded that the applicant desired to separate the cell tower lot from the main lot to alleviate any hindrance to future sale of the property. He continued that the Town was interested in purchasing the property exclusive of the cell tower lot. David Woodbury pointed that the applicant’s next step of recourse would be litigation. He asked what position the applicant took on proceeding with this matter to court. Michael Dalhberg, LLS, stated that the applicant did not wish to bring this matter forward to the courts. David Woodbury asked if
the applicant’s 30 day appeal timeframe had expired. Michael Dahlberg, LLS, indicated that the 30 day timeframe for appeal had not expired. David Woodbury asked whether the applicant had made a decision to sell the property to the town or if the applicant planned on developing the property. Sandra Martel of Vista Road, LLC, stated that the applicant was interested in selling the property for conservation purposes. She continued that there were no plans to develop the property. She added that when the Town had approached the applicant regarding the purchase of the property they expressed a desire to separate the cell tower lot from the remaining property. Douglas Hill asked if an easement could be placed on the property for the cell tower. Sandra Martel noted that placing an easement on the property would be an involved process that would include leases and rents.
Douglas Hill stated that he would not have a problem with the proposed back lot. He continued that the lot did not appear to be a development type property and believed it would be foolish to spend money on proving that driveway could be constructed. He added that the two questions surrounding the property were: (1) Is the property a back lot?; and (2) Would the applicant need to go through the process of proving that a driveway can be constructed, i.e, obtaining all pertinent permits?
The Chairman asked for the Board’s position on the proposed plan. Don Duhaime believed that the applicant’s request for a back lot was reasonable. Peter Hogan also agreed that the request for a back lot was reasonable. David Woodbury stated that he did not have any objections to separating the lot for the cell tower. He continued that he did not have any objections to the description given of the back lot.
Michael Dalhberg, LLS, submitted the proposed plans. The Coordinator advised that the applicant was scheduled for a hearing on January 26, 2010, at 7:30 p.m.
MISCELLANOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 2010.
1. Approval of minutes of November 24, 2009, distributed by email.
Don Duhaime MOVED to approve the minutes of November 24, 2009, as written. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Approval of minutes of December 8, 2009, distributed by email.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the minutes of December 8, 2009, as written. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Distribution of the December 22, 2009, meeting minutes via email for approval at the meeting of January 26, 2010.
The Coordinator stated that she would resend the above-referenced meeting minutes for
approval at the January 26, 2010, meeting, since a couple of Board members had informed her
that they didn’t receive them.
5. Letter dated December 18, 2009, to Ms. Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, from Timothy H. White, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner of Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, re: 2009 Traffic Counting Program, for the Board’s information. (Copy of traffic counts available in the Planning Department)
The Coordinator advised that a copy of the traffic counts was available for review in the
Planning Office if anyone was interested.
6. Notice dated 12/28/09, from lawoftheland.wordpress.com, re: Petition Pending for Reconsideration of New FCC Rules Setting Timeframes for Governments to Act on Wireless Tower Siting Applications Under TCA, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion
occurred.
7. Invitation from Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, to Rebuilding Southern New Hampshire Through Brownfields Investment, Advisory Committee Meeting, 1/14/10, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion
occurred.
8. Letter copy dated 12/30/09, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator and Board of Selectmen, Karen Johnson, Chair, and Finance Committee Members, re: Legal Expenditures 2009, this is for the Board’s information.
David Woodbury stated the Coordinator did an excellent job in creating the above-referenced information. He continued that the Town’s legal expenses had been substantially over budget but not because of the Planning Board’s expenses.
9. Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for Clark Hill Trust, Ruth R. Trussell, Trustee, Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/1, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman stated that he would complete the endorsement at the close of the meeting.
10a. Letter copy dated December 29, 2009, from David J. Preece, AICP, Executive Director, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, to Mr. Stephen B. Griffin, AICP, Director, Goffstown Planning & Economic Development Dept, re: Woodland Village-Development of Regional Impact, for the Board’s information.
10b. Discussion, re: Woodland Village-Regional Impact. (Catherine Przekaza, Goffstown resident and abutter to Woodland Village will be here to discuss her concerns of regional impact with you.)
The Chairman addressed item #10a and #10b together as they were related. He indicated that the parties in item #10a did not deem the Woodland Village Development to have a regional impact.
The Chairman advised that Catherine Przekaza was present to address the Board with her opinion that the Woodland Village Development would have a regional impact and more specifically would adversely affect New Boston.
Catherine Przekaza of Evergreen Drive, Goffstown, stated that she was a direct abutter to Woodland Village Development located on Bog Road. She stated that the proposed project consisted of 76 townhouses that would allow for two parking spaces for each unit. She noted that the development was being proposed in a “R-1” District by special exception. She explainedthat to obtain a special exception in Goffstown the applicant must meet five criteria; she took issue with two of the criteria. She stated that the first criteria that must be met was to not createa nuisance or a hazard for vehicles or pedestrians and the second criteria stated that the proposed location was a sufficient size to allow for adequate and appropriate facilities for the proper operation of such development.
Catherine Przekaza stated that the oval in Goffstown that intersected with Route 13 is traveled by New Boston residents to gain access to Manchester, Nashua and other municipalities.
She stated that the developer’s position was that the additional cars from the proposed development would not create a nuisance or hazard because the intersection was currently rated as a level F intersection. It was Catherine’s Przekaza’s opinion that any additional vehicles would create an increased nuisance or hazard.
David Woodbury asked Catherine Przekaza to sketch a map of the proposed development location. The Chairman explained where the proposed development was located.
David Woodbury stated that he would be interested in the configuration of the intersection of Route 13 and Bog Road as he believed it was a terrible intersection. Catherine Przekaza agreed with David Woodbury.
The Chairman asked why Catherine Przekaza believed the proposed development would impact New Boston. Catherine Przekaza explained that impact on New Boston would be relative to traffic as the intersection at the oval and Route 13 East was rated a service level F. She noted that upgrades to the intersection were currently listed on the Goffstown CIP for 2012. It was her opinion that the intersection was used mostly by New Boston residents as it was two miles from the town line.
Douglas Hill asked if Catherine Przekaza would have an issue with the development if upgrades to the intersection were completed. Catherine Przekaza stated that she would not have an issue if the intersection was a service level A or B. It was Douglas Hill’s opinion that should the development be approved it was likely that the intersection upgrades would be completed prior to the completion of the proposed development.
Douglas Hill asked for Mark Suennen’s opinion if he believed a substantial number of cars were being added to the intersection due to the proposed development as he was a traffic engineer. Mark Suennen stated that based on the information provided by Catherine Przekaza he believed that a 76-unit development would translate into 0.8 trips per unit during peak hours which was less than 76 trips. Douglas Hill asked how much of an impact the 0.8 trips per unit would make on the intersection. Mark Suennen advised that some municipalities did not believe an impact was made until at least 100 trips during the peak hours. He believed that the additional trips would cause an impact and that New Boston should become involved in the
decision.
Douglas Hill asked Catherine Przekaza if she would take issue with the development if the traffic issues did not exist. Catherine Przekaza answered that she would prefer the density of the development to be reduced as it was located in a single family neighborhood. She added that the development was not keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Douglas Hill asked if a similar development on Mountain Road was under construction.Catherine Przekaza explained that three buildings with 8 units existed. She continued that the buildings were no longer considered a permitted use.
Douglas Hill asked if the proposed development was affordable housing. Catherine Przekaza stated that the developer had not disclosed if the proposed development was affordable housing as it was not germane to the decision. She continued that as of January 1, 2010, the rules relative to the disclosure of affordable housing had changed and as such the developer was required to advise of a decision to construct affordable housing. Mark Suennen clarified that the developer would only need to disclose information if they were intending to follow the current Workforce Housing Regulations. He added that if the developer did not intend on using the special Workforce Housing Builders’ Remedy then disclosure was not
required.
The Coordinator noted that not all the traffic associated with the intersection in question was New Boston residents.
David Woodbury asked by what percentage the problem would be increased with additional cars added to the intersection. Mark Suennen noted that the traffic report stated that 11-20 cars would be added to the intersection during peak hours creating about a 1% increase and if the 2006 numbers were updated to today, the percentage may be even smaller.
Catherine Przekaza asked the Board to generate a letter stating that New Boston was concerned with a potential nuisance or hazard at the intersection.
David Woodbury commented that in his opinion the intersection of Bog Road and Route 13 would be impacted by the proposed development more so than the intersection of Route 13 and Route 114. He believed that New Boston did have an interest in the future in the Bog Road/Route 13 intersection.
The Board agreed that New Boston had an interest in the proposed Woodland Village development and its potential impacts to the two intersections discussed above, and decided to send a letter to that effect. Catherine Przekaza asked if the letter could be sent prior to the Goffstown ZBA meeting of January 18, 2010. She also asked to be copied on the letter at 27 Evergreen Drive, Goffstown, New Hampshire.
4. Letter dated January 7, 2010, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Planning Board Members, re: Deadline for accepting Applications as Complete, for the Board’s review & discussion.
The Chairman stated the above-referenced letter addressed items that the Board required to be complete prior to the acceptance of a subdivision application. He explained that issues have been created when items are required, i.e., plans or studies, prior to the execution of a site walk making it difficult to make decisions on waivers. He added that to alleviate the Board from approving applications with caveats a decision was needed on the following three options: (1) Removing some of the items currently required for an application and moving them to a secondary list; (2) Accept the application and add language for additional requirements; (3) Provisionally granting waivers.
The Chairman commented that he would like to move forward with the first option. He asked the Coordinator for her opinion. The Coordinator stated that she was in favor of removing the items from the application that are frequently asked to waived as well as those items that cannot be waived until after a site walk is completed.
The Coordinator advised that she was unsure how the Board wanted to handle Certified Erosion Control Plans because they are often asked to be waived. She continued that quite often an applicant does not provide the required technical documents that demonstrate why the waiver is being requested. She asked the Board if they believed the warranty deed, bond numbers, road name, and the impact studies needed to be completed for the acceptance of an application. The Board agreed to remove the items listed by the Coordinator as part of the application process.
Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator if critical areas were defined as anything more than 75’of any wetland. The Coordinator clarified that the regulations refer to disturbed areas within 75’ of wetlands.
The Chairman stated that the Board needed to decide whether to add ISWMP to the list of items to be completed after a site walk or whether it should be completed at the time of the submission of the application. The Board decided that the ISWMP’s should be moved to the list of things that would be required for approval but not acceptance.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to draft the proposed changes to be reviewed at the next meeting.
Mark Suennen asked if it was necessary to require firefighting water supply plans and documents in order to accept an application as complete. The Coordinator stated that perhaps the application should require the applicant to state their intent regarding firefighting water supply and provide the documents for approval.
Mark Suennen asked if it was necessary to require an applicant to obtain driveway permits prior to the approval of the subdivision. The Coordinator explained that the requirements listed for the approval of an application were not divided into minor and major subdivisions. She continued that it was advantageous for a minor subdivision applicant to obtain the permits prior to approval to expedite the process, particularly if it was a State driveway permit that was required.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted, Minutes Approved:
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk 02/09/10
|