The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular member Mark Suennen and Ex-officio Dwight Lovejoy. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Shannon Silver and Recording Clerk Valerie Diaz.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Laura Bernard, Conservation Commission, Tim White, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC), Christine Quirk, Selectman & Sign Committee, Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer & Sign Committee, Paula Bellemore, Director PLC, Morgan Hollis, Esq., Jeff Rider, P.E., Dana Lorden, and Shiv Shrestha.
Discussion with Tim White, SNHPC, re: Ten Year Highway Plan
The Chairman invited Tim White, SNHPC, to begin the discussion of the Ten-Year Highway Plan. Tim White, SNHPC, stated that he was the Senior Transportation Planner for the SNHPC. He explained that he was visiting all of the towns in the SNHPC region to discuss the Ten-Year Highway Plan that was in the initial stages of development for the fiscal year 2013 through the fiscal year 2022.
Tim White, SNHPC, advised that a joint air quality conformity statement had been completed in August 2010 and the finishing touches to the transportation improvement program were currently being completed, i.e., new regional air quality analysis.
Tim White, SNHPC, referred the Board to the second page of his handout, ““FY 2013 – FY 2022 Ten-Year Highway Plan”, and pointed to the flow chart that illustrated how the two-year cycle process worked. He noted that currently the SNHPC was at the implementation stage of the process. He explained that the next step in the process was a formal project solicitation made to the towns included in the SNHPC region in order to gather input for the new version of the Ten-Year Highway Plan. He explained that all the project input received from the member towns and stakeholders was evaluated by the SNHPC Technical Advisory Committee and subsequently forwarded to the DOT. He noted that the information needed to be submitted to the DOT by May 1, 2011.
Tim White, SNHPC, asked the Board to review the projects that were currently listed for New Boston in the Ten-Year Highway Plan as well as any new projects that they would like to have added in the future. He referred the Board to page three of his handout that listed current projects for New Boston that were included in the Ten-Year Highway Plan. He advised that New Boston did not have any projects included in the long range plan. He stated that a formal project solicitation would be mailed at a later date for the purpose of making changes or additions.
Tim White, SNHPC, invited questions or comments from the Board. The Chairman asked when the Board should expect the arrival of the formal project solicitation letter. Tim White, SNHPC, answered that typically the letter is sent in January. He continued that information received from the letter would be discussed with the Technical Advisory Committee in March or April in order to have a results mailed to the DOT by May 1st.
The Chairman asked for confirmation that Gregg Mill Road Bridge, Millpond Footbridge, and Tucker Mill Road Bridge were listed projects in the current Ten-Year Highway Plan. Tim White, SNHPC, answered that all three bridges were listed in the current version of the Ten-Year Highway Plan. The Chairman asked if those bridge projects needed to be resubmitted for the new version of the Ten-Year Highway Plan. Tim White, SNHPC, advised that most towns reinforced their commitment to projects by resubmitting them.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if input was needed from the Road Committee with regard to projects in the Ten-Year Highway Plan. The Coordinator answered that typically the Road Committee and Board of Selectmen had the greatest amount of input with regard to road and bridge projects. Tim White, SNHPC, stated that he was not sure if any response had been received from New Boston when the previous formal project solicitation letter was sent two years prior and added that he needed to check his files to confirm. The Chairman suggested that a letter be sent to the Road Committee and Board of Selectmen advising of the Town’s participation in Ten-Year Highway Plan process.
The Chairman asked for further comments or questions from the Board. Mark Suennen asked if the bridges identified as “red-listed bridges” that were not currently included in the Ten-Year Highway Plan would be included if funding was increased in the future. Tim White, SNHPC, advised that the DOT was going to try and obtain funding for the bridge repairs for NH Route 13 over the South Branch of the Piscataquog River through the operations of the bridge replacement program. He continued that the remaining two “red-listed” bridges were not included in the Ten-Year Highway Plan and should be added. Mark Suennen stated that it was his understanding that the NH Route 13 [bridge over the South Branch of the Piscataquog River] was red-listed because it was
functionally obsolete as opposed to being structurally deficient. Tim White, SNHPC, clarified that the NH Route 13 bridge over the South Branch of the Piscataquog River did have structural problems.
The Chairman summarized that the Board would be receiving a letter of formal project solicitation and that a response was required. He questioned whether specific involvement was needed from the Town of New Boston with regard to the Technical Advisory Committee meetings previously mentioned. Tim White, SNHPC, answered that the Town of New Boston was encouraged to participate in the SNHPC Technical Advisory Committee where the projects would be discussed and ranked. He added that after all of the projects were submitted to the State and a first draft of the Ten-Year Highway Plan was completed the Town of New Boston was also encouraged to participate in the GACIT hearings.
The Chairman asked for any additional comments or questions from the Board; there were no additional comments or questions.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF November 23, 2010
1 Approval of minutes of October 26, 2010, distributed by email.
The Board tabled the above-referenced matter to the next meeting as not all of the members had reviewed the minutes.
3.Letter received November 17, 2010, from Peter Belleville, Manager, Muddy Waters Landscaping, 680 Bedford Road, New Boston Planning Board, re: Home Shop Qualification, for the Board’s action.
The Chairman stated that there was a question of whether or not the above-referenced business should be considered a Home Shop as storage for his business was done on the above-referenced property.
Mark Suennen’s opinion was that the information contained in the above-referenced letter described a Home Shop.
Dwight Lovejoy reviewed the Town’s Regulations of a Home Shop and he agreed that the above-referenced letter described a Home Shop.
The Chairman requested that the Coordinator advise Mr. Belleville that the Board had requested that a Home Shop application be completed; the Coordinator agreed.
5. Planning Board Handbook Update, November 2010, Supplement to the October 2009 Edition, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
6. Daily road inspection reports dated, October and November 2010, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: SIB Trust, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussionoccurred.
7. Piscataquog River Local Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of the November 15, 2010, meeting, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
8. Piscataquog River Local Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda for the Meeting of December 13, 2010, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
9. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the City of Concord, re: installation of a wireless telecommunication tower.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
11. Distribution of the November 9, 2010, meeting minutes via email for approval at the meeting of December 14, 2010.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
12. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Londonderry, re: installation of a wireless telecommunication tower.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
2a. Discussion, re: Susana LeClair Revocable Trust, unstabilized areas, Tax/Map Lot #9/24-12 & 13, Wilson Hill and Bedford Roads.
2b.Status Inquiry/Release form from RLI Surety, re: Susana LeClair Revocable Trust-Subdivision/Site Improvements, Wilson Hill and Bedford Roads, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman addressed items 2a and 2b together as they were related. He explained that the above-referenced applicant had completed the remaining work to their subdivision and had met the requirements for an extension of the State’s permit.
The Chairman stated that he and Mark Suennen had met with the Bob Leclair, applicant, and Allen Brown, Excavator, on the previous Saturday to review the unstabilized areas. He said that a determination had been made that approximately 200 s.f. of area at the Wilson Hill property needed to be stabilized. He asked the Coordinator if the applicant had contacted the Planning Office to inquire about obtaining a bond estimate worksheet for the 200 s.f. of unstabilized area previously mentioned. The Coordinator advised that the applicant had faxed the bond estimate worksheet earlier in the day. The Chairman inquired about the amount of the bond. Shannon Silver advised that the amount of the bond was $90.00.
The Chairman advised that with regard to the Bedford Road property, stabilization was still needed on top of the culvert. He explained that the applicant had not stabilized the area because it would eventually be covered when the driveway was constructed. He continued that because there were no plans to develop the area in the near future the applicant agreed to add rock to the area in question. He indicated that he had not returned to the property to check on the status of the project.
The Chairman stated that the applicant had placed stone dust at the entrance of the Wilson Hill property in an effort to cut down on erosion.
The Coordinator advised that a compliance hearing in this matter had been adjourned to the next hearing at which time the Board would make a determination of compliance. The Chairman indicated that the Board would be inclined to determine compliance at the next hearing and asked the Coordinator to advise the applicant to attend with the appropriate fees.
Mark Suennen asked if the Board had historically granted bond reductions prior to the finalization of the compliance hearing. The Coordinator answered yes, noting that not typically for an amount this small.
The Chairman provided the Coordinator a copy of his handwritten notes from the meeting at the properties with Bob Leclair, applicant, and Allen Brown, Excavator.
Discussion with Sign Committee, re: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Present in the audience were the following members of the Sign Committee: Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, Christine Quirk, Selectman. Also present were Laura Bernard, Conservation Commission, Paula Bellemore, PLC, Morgan Hollis, Esq., Jeff Rider, P.E., Dana Lorden, and Shiv Shrestha.
The Chairman began the discussion by stating that after reading the meeting minutes from the Committee it appeared that they had done a great job and had made a lot of progress. He invited the Committee to present to the Board.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that a comprehensive redrawing of the Sign Ordinance had been completed. He asked the Chairman if he wanted him to go through the draft and highlight certain items or if the Board had specific questions for the Committee. The Chairman advised that the Committee should proceed by going through the draft and ask any relevant questions of the Board.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that part of the objective of the Committee was to create a flowing format. He explained that the beginning of the document contained a purpose and definitions. He noted that the definition of “normal grade” had been added as it appeared in the Ordinance in a couple of places but had not been previously defined.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that the Committee had compiled a list of things that were considered signs to which the Ordinance would not apply. He noted that “No Hunting” and “No Trespassing” signs had been added to the list.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, indicated that the next section of the Ordinance dealt with general requirements for all signs. He stated that the section also addressed which signs were required to have permits and those signs that were not required to have permits. He advised that permitted signs needed to be constructed of durable materials and maintained. He added that the section also contained a list of prohibited signs, i.e., internally illuminated signs, animated, flashing or intermittent signs, signs with more than two faces, roof signs, and signs that were attached to or were intrinsic parts of awnings. The Chairman asked what category of prohibited signs the signs located at the intersection of South Willow Street and I-293 in
Manchester, NH, were covered under. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered that the signs the Chairman referred to would be considered animated signs.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, advised that externally illuminated signs were permitted in all districts as long as the lighting came from the exterior of the sign. He added that the externally illuminated signs could not cause any confusion or hazard to the traffic in the surrounding area.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that the Committee had made a determination with regard to calculations for the size of signs. He noted that this issue had been discussed within the Committee extensively. He stated that Fred Pineault who served on the Committee and was also employed by a sign company had indicated that measuring signs was difficult and as such information was added to the ordinance that provided an explanation on how signs were measured. He stated that the area of a sign would be determined by the shape of the surface on which lettering, numbers, designs, pictures or borders were applied and displayed.
He continued that the mathematical formula for area would be used that represented the closest geometrical shape of the sign's surface.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that a section entitled “Building Code Compliance” had been added to the Ordinance and explained that structural aspects of signs needed to comply with the International Building Code. He also indicated that electrical connections and wiring related equipment needed to comply with the Electrical Code. He noted that the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer had the discretion to require a design professional to review any permanent sign for structural stability.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that real estate development signs were required to be no larger than 12 s.f., be constructed of durable material, meet property line setbacks and height restrictions for the zoning districts, and be removed within thirty days of meeting their purpose.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, addressed Special Event Signs. He advised that the Committee decided to limit the posting of the signs to thirty days; however, the Committee did not place a limit on the size of the signs. He continued that the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, if warranted, could make a determination that the size of a sign was unreasonable.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, advised that with regard to maintenance the Ordinance required signs in disrepair to be removed.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that the section that addressed “Property of Others” indicated that permission was required to post signs on the property of others. He continued that permission was also required on rights-of-way either from the State or the Town of New Boston.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, explained that pre-existing permitted signs were allowed to remain. He added that sign permits ran with the land and not with the landowner.
The Chairman referred back to the section on real estate development signs and asked for clarification that those signs pertained to signs such as the ones currently posted for the Twin Bridge, Pulpit Road, and Hutchinson Lane developments. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered yes. The Chairman asked if the size limitation of 12 s.f. was currently the limit listed in the Ordinance. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered yes and stated that signs were typically 3’ X 4’. The Chairman questioned the requirement regarding maintenance and asked if signs that were falling down were an issue for repairs. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered yes. The Chairman referred back to the section
regarding “Property of Others” and asked if the right-of-way was considered 25’ from the center line of the road. The Coordinator answered generally yes.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, addressed Section 318.4, "Signs in Residential Districts". He stated that this section covered signs relative to home businesses. He explained that the Ordinance restricted what could appear on the sign and advised that name, address, phone number, and websites were permissible. He continued that off-site signs were allowed with permission. He stated that signs would not be greater than 8’ high, measured from the base of the sign at normal grade to the top of the highest attached component. He added that the closest portion of the sign to any property line would be no closer than 15’ and would also meet the State’s setback requirements on State roads.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, addressed Section 318.5, "Signs in the Commercial and Industrial Districts". He advised that each lot would have a maximum of 100 s.f. of signage. He continued that one free standing sign was permitted to be a maximum of 70 s.f. He pointed out that the 70 s.f. included both faces of the sign. He explained that the remaining 30 s.f. could be used for all wall signs and/or portable “A” frame signs. He stated that a question of how this section applied to lots with two businesses had recently been discussed by himself and the Coordinator. He stated that it was his opinion that the free standing sign requirements should continue to apply to two businesses; however, he believed lots with three or
more businesses should be allowed to post an additional 30 s.f. of wall signage. The Chairman asked for clarification that the free standing sign requirements would not change with the additional number of businesses on a lot. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, confirmed the Chairman’s statement. The Chairman stated that 70 s.f. of free standing sign allowed for 35 s.f. on both sides of the sign. He asked if a free standing sign facing a road was allowed to use 70 s.f. on only one side. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered yes. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, continued with his explanation of Section 318.5, "Signs in the Commercial and Industrial Districts". He stated that buildings on corner lots could have wall signs on both walls facing the street; however, the size of the wall signs would remain within the allowable maximum square footage for
signage for the lot. He stated that signs would not be greater than 15’ high measured from the base of the sign at normal grade to the top of the highest attached component of the sign. He noted that this was a decrease of 15’ from the current Ordinance. He advised that setbacks from property lines would be 15’ from side and rear. He continued that the front setbacks would be determined with regards to safety, road maintenance and other applicable easements by the Building Inspector/ Code Enforcement Officer and in addition to the specified setbacks, signs would also meet the State's setback requirements. He stated that signs would not project over public rights-of-way or property lines. He advised that interior window signs were prohibited with the exception of an “OPEN” sign not greater than 425 square inches. He used the Northeast Café’s “OPEN” sign as an example of such a sign.
He stated that manual changeable sign area would be included in the calculation of the total square footage of allowable sign area for the lot. The Chairman asked what would happen to an existing sign that did not meet the proposed new ordinance. The Coordinator answered that the sign would have grandfathered status. The Chairman asked for how long the sign would be considered grandfathered. The Coordinator answered that the sign would be grandfathered until such a time as an owner proposed a change. The Chairman asked if any current signs in Town fell outside of the proposed Sign Ordinance. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer answered that he did not believe that any signs fell outside of the proposed Sign Ordinance. Mark Suennen questioned whether or not the sign at Damien’s restaurant was internally illuminated. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer answered no and pointed out that
the sign in question was externally illuminated. The Chairman asked if the owner of Damien’s had taken down two of the interior illuminated signs. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, indicated that he was not aware of the signs the Chairman was referring to and would further review.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, referred the Board to Section 318.6, "Regulated Signs not Requiring a Permit", of the proposed Sign Ordinance. He noted that this section contained substantial changes from the current Sign Ordinance with the exception of requirements for bulletin boards and political signs. He stated that temporary agricultural products or construction signs were allowed and would not exceed 12 s.f. per face and were required to be removed within thirty days of fulfilling their function. He explained that real estate signs were permitted on the property being sold, leased or developed. The Chairman asked if real estate signs were required to follow the previously mentioned setback requirements. Ed Hunter, Building
Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered no. He moved on to special event signs for non-profit organizations and advised that signs for such events could be displayed for no more than thirty days and off-site signs were permissible with written permission from the landowner and the Board of Selectmen. He added that there was no size limit for the special events signs; however, the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement, was given the discretion to make a determination whether or not the size of the sign was reasonable. He went on to define seasonal signs and stated that such signs could be displayed for a maximum of 90 days and were not permitted to exceed 12 s.f. per face.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, addressed Section 318.7, "Signs on Town Owned Property", of the proposed Sign Ordinance, noting that the Board of Selectmen regulated signs in this section.
The Chairman asked what the State legislation was relative to political signs. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that State did not require permits for political signs and that permission from landowners was required to display such signs. He added that there was a period of time in which the signs were required to be removed.
Dwight Lovejoy asked if there was a section in the proposed Ordinance that addressed the monitoring of language on signs. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered that the Committee had discussed this issue. He referred the Board to the current section on signs in Residential Districts which listed allowable language on a sign. He noted that the current language emphasized that signs were for the purpose of establishing location and not advertisement. He noted that had been changed in the proposed ordinance to permit advertising as part of the sign. He continued that the Committee had discussed issues concerning the content of signs and how that would be considered limiting free speech and had decided that they would not attempt to deal with the issue.
The Chairman asked if the Sign Committee had completed a final draft of the proposed Sign Ordinance. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, indicated that a final draft was not quite ready as a few comments needed to be addressed. The Chairman asked the Board members to provide any comments on the proposed Ordinance by the next meeting. He reiterated that he believed the Committee had done a really good job on the revisions to the Ordinance. Christine Quirk added that she also thought the ordinance had come together very well.
FREDERICK K. LORDEN REVOCABLE TRUST (OWNER)
HARVEY J. DUPUIS FAMILY TRUST (OWNER)
SHIV K. SHRESTHA (APPLICANT) Adjourned from October 26, 2010
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/42 Lots w/open space
Location: McCurdy Road & Susan Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 12/96 & 12/93-34
Present in the audience were applicant Shiv Shrestha, along with Morgan Hollis, Esq., Jeff Rider, P.E., and Dana Lorden. Also present were Paula Bellemore, PLC, and Laura Bernard, Conservation Commission.
The Chairman stated that the application was determined to be complete on August 24, 2010, with a deadline for Board action on October 28, 2010. He noted that the application had agreed to an extension of the statutory deadlines. He stated that if this matter was not closed tonight another extension would be required. He advised that a draft of the plans showing Suitable Building Envelope Lines was submitted on November 4, 2010, and was acceptable to the Planning Department and Town Engineer. He noted that the previously submitted waiver request regarding the Suitable Building Envelope Lines was no longer necessary and should be withdrawn. The Coordinator informed the Board that a revised copy of the plans had been submitted this evening. The Chairman commented that
because the plans were submitted tonight the Board had not had an opportunity to review them. He asked if the revised bond estimate had also been submitted. Jeff Rider, P.E., answered yes. The Chairman noted that the outstanding issues that remained were the graphical presentation of the easement areas and questions from Town Counsel relative to the easements.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., acknowledged that the revisions to the plan had just been completed and submitted to the Town and therefore, he was not asking the Board to discuss those this evening. He stated that at the last meeting the Conservation Commission had raised the possibility of the Town owning the open space lot with a conservation easement held by the PLC. He explained that following the meeting he had drafted a deed to the Town and a proposed conservation easement in favor of the PLC that were submitted to the Town and subsequently sent to Town Counsel. He advised that Town Counsel had responded to the documents with a lengthy letter at which time he contacted Attorney Drescher directly to discuss the issues addressed in the letter. He believed that it would be helpful to go
through a series of plans so that the Board was clear on the open space lots and the conservation areas. He also advised that he had spoken with the PLC earlier in the day on this matter.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that he became involved with this project earlier this year and prior to his involvement the project had been ongoing for several years. He continued that in the previous life of this project it had been proposed that the developer would own the open space perpetually with an easement in favor of the Conservation Commission. He advised that there were two issues with the previous proposal: 1) the Town Ordinance did not allow for a developer to own the open space; and 2) the Conservation Commission was not interested in holding the easement. He indicated that because of the two aforementioned issues he had drafted and proposed a Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements. He explained that the developer imposed a set of covenants and
restrictions on the property. He continued that the particular restrictions proposed mirrored conservation easement language and further explained that the reason the language was so strict was due to permits received from DES that required conservation restrictions on the land. He indicated that DES had been advised that overall restrictions could not be placed on the entire parcel because of drainage structures. He stated that DES had determined that everything but the drainage structures would be subject to the conservation restrictions. Morgan Hollis, Esq., further explained that as long as the land was going to be owned in common by the 40 landowners they would retain certain rights. He added that when the ownership of the land changed to the Town rights needed to be preserved in the deed. He stated that once he had preserved the rights of the Town in the deed a “monkey wrench” had been thrown into the plans. He continued
that after speaking with Attorney Drescher he believed that if the decision was to proceed with the deed being given to the Town the rights needed to be spelled out more carefully.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that he hoped a decision could be reached between the Board, Conservation Commission and the PLC on how to move forward on this matter. He explained that the Town’s Ordinance provided that the applicant and/or developer shall propose who will own the open space and the Planning Board would approve.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., passed out a set of plans to the Board and audience members that illustrated the entire project with the open space identified in the red. He explained that nothing could be constructed within the red open space area. He pointed to the two lots that contained open space on the plan. He stated that the Ordinance required that every lot must have access to the open space and that was the reason for a "walkway" that he identified on the plan.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., passed out a second set of plans to the Board and audience members that illustrated the portion of the open space that would be under conservation restrictions. He identified the green area of the plan as the conservation restriction area. He pointed out the drainage easement area under the original plan where easements would be granted to the Town for drainage off the roadways. He continued that should the Town instead own the open space area they would no longer be considered easements but would continue to not be subject to the conservation restrictions. He stated that all of the red areas represented open space that was not subject to the conservation area and/or easement. He pointed out that should the PLC or Conservation Commission decided to hold
the easement it would be for all of the areas in green with the exception of the red areas that represented drainage and open space. He explained that a portion of the red open space on Lot #12/93-34 was not part of the original area submitted to DES for approval. He indicated that the applicant was not interested in approaching DES for further approval but would add the area to the open space anyway.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., passed out a third set of plans to the Board and audience members that illustrated the drainage easement areas versus the remaining conservation land. He pointed out the public drainage areas that could not be included in the open space. He then pointed out a small area of open space that was neither conservation land nor drainage easement and explained that it would remain part of the open space but was not currently covered under the conservation restrictions. He noted that should the parties involved wish to have the area in question added to the conservation easement the applicant would accommodate that request.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., advised that Attorney Drescher had raised the question of what rights were being reserved and why they were being reserved. He provided the Board with a list of proposed reserved rights.
Mark Suennen referred back to the third plan presented by Morgan Hollis, Esq., that included representations in red, yellow, and green. He stated that the proposed drainage followed Lorden Road with the exception of private property but did not follow McCurdy Road. Morgan Hollis, Esq., confirmed that Mark Suennen’s assessment of the drainage was correct. Mark Suennen asked if existing ditch lines would be used on McCurdy Road. Jeff Rider, P.E., answered yes. Morgan Hollis, Esq., added that orange/brown areas shown on the plan represented existing swales and/or ponds that DES prohibited from being included in the conservation land and that was the rationale for the carve outs on the plan. Mark Suennen asked how the
applicant planned on delineating the drainage areas so that the Conservation Commission would be aware of where water should not be flowing. Morgan Hollis, Esq., answered that he was not aware of how New Boston handled this issue but noted that some Towns utilized wetland setbacks. He continued that the areas that Mark Suennen was referring to did not create issues of whether the area could or could not drain because those structures flowed across the entire open space land. Mark Suennen stated that the Town would need to know the outer limits of the drainage areas for maintenance purposes. Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that the facilities would be somewhat obvious and could be staked out. He continued that each area would be specifically and legally described. He added that if no one wanted to hold the easement for the conservation land then all of green area shown would be covered under the restrictions and covenants.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., referred the Board to the list of reserved rights that he had provided. He explained that should the land be conveyed to the Town the developer would retain the rights to do certain things that may not otherwise be considered retained rights. He stated that the lots proposed for this subdivision were smaller than normal and could flow on abutter’s property. He explained that the subdivision was designed for flow to go onto abutters' property and was allowed to do so because of the existing buffer. He stated that room for the flowage needed to be reserved and he proposed to reserve the right to flow surface and subsurface drainage over the entire project. He explained that it was only required that a band of 75’ from the boundaries of the each
of the properties be identified. He noted all of the areas that required identification had been identified as follows: “ (A) surface and subsurface flowage related to storm water drainage from each of the lots in any portion of the property which is 75’ from the mutual boundaries of the property and any of the lots; (B) subsurface flowage related to septic systems constructed or to be constructed for any of the lots, but specifically excluding the right to locate any septic system structures on the property and excluding the right to flow septage from a failed septic system; (C) subsurface water withdrawal by wells located on any of the lots, but not including the right to drill wells on the property; (D) use in calculations for well protective radius areas as may be required by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services within the portion of the property which is 75’ from the mutual boundaries of the lots and the property for the benefit of
lots on the property, but specifically excluding the right to drill or maintain any wells on the property; and (E) use for septic reserve calculations within the portion of the property which is 75’ from the mutual boundaries of the lots with the property limited to the purpose of maintaining proper area necessary for the construction of a septic system on any of the lots, but excluding the right to construct any facility on the property itself.
The Chairman asked for clarification with regard to (E) of the reserved rights that the 75’ boundaries were strictly within the external boundaries. Morgan Hollis, Esq., answered yes and identified the area in question on the plan as being illustrated in blue.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that he believed the reserved rights he listed addressed all of Attorney Drescher’s concerns, noting that he had yet to communicate them to Attorney Drescher or the PLC. He stated that the applicant was happy to convey easements and deeds or not to convey the easement and deeds. He expressed that the applicant preferred not to convey the land to the Town. He went on to say that after thirty years in the land use business it was his experience that what was trying to be accomplished was a common area for the lot owners as well as the public. He continued that if the land was being acquired as a public recreation site there may be more municipal interest in owning or controlling the land; however, he noted overall the area was not intended to be an
active recreation site. It was Morgan Hollis, Esq.’s, opinion that the land would be best managed by all of the lot owners having a vested ownership interest. He added that he had created the vested ownership interest on other subdivisions by deeding the land to a homeowners' association. He advised that he had found a conflict within
the Town’s Ordinance that allowed for the land to be deeded to each of the owners but in a different section it stated that the land must be deeded to a separate entity. He reiterated that the applicant had no problem with creating a homeowners' association that clearly stated in the deed that lot owners shall be a member, shall pay dues for maintenance, and shall be obligated to maintain the organization. He also indicated that the applicant was happy to give a conservation easement over all of the green area identified on the plan. He went on to say that unless a party was interested in the open space land the proposed restrictions and covenants functioned just as well and the right to the land was given to the Town and not the obligation. He indicated that the PLC, DES, and/or
Conservation Commission could be added to the restrictions and covenants. The Chairman asked for Morgan Hollis, Esq., to summarize the choices before the Board on how to proceed with the open space and conservation land. Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated the choices as the following: 1) the Town would own the open space lots with either a conservation easement being granted to another entity, the PLC or Conservation Commission, or a declaration of restrictions and covenants prior to conveyance; or 2) ownership retained in common by the forty lot owners that would be either subject to restrictions and covenants or subject to a conservation easement; or 3) deeding the open space to a homeowners' association.
Paula Bellemore, PLC, stated that she was not entirely sure what the Town’s goal was relative to the conservation easement. She asked if the Town was interested in creating conservation land or creating access area. The Chairman answered that he was unsure of what the Town’s goal was. Paula Bellamore, PLC, answered that not knowing what the Town’s goal was made it difficult to move forward as the PLC was not aware of what they were trying to accomplish. Mark Suennen suggested stating that the Master Plan encouraged increasing the amount of open space in Town without regard for passive or active recreation.
Paula Bellemore, PLC, stated that her impression of moving forward with covenants and restrictions would allow the Town the option of enforcing the restrictions but did not require the Town to do so. She questioned whether or not the covenants and restrictions met DES requirements for conservation land. Morgan Hollis, Esq., added that the conservation easement would be filed with DES for approval. He noted that he had alerted DES to the covenants and restrictions and believed that they would be okay with them but could not say so with finality. He stated that DES’s main concern was if they were allowed to enforce the restrictions.
Paula Bellemore, PLC, indicated that the easement offered a higher level of protection as it obligated the holder to enforce the terms of the agreement. She stated that the PLC did like the two different layers of land protection that this plan offered; however, DES was requiring certain areas be included in the easement that the PLC was not willing to take on; she pointed out the areas on the plan and monitoring difficulties. Paula Bellemore pointed to areas that the PLC was very interested in as they led to Shaky Pond. She explained that the PLC was interested in having an easement on the bulk of the land but unfortunately because of the complexities with Ordinance and DES requirements was difficult for the PLC to take the easement as it was proposed. She noted that additionally
the PLC had not been able to walk the land and it was not flagged. She indicated that she had addressed the possibility of getting the land marked or flagged with Morgan Hollis, Esq., and had been advised that it was not possible. She noted that the PLC would not take an easement without walking the boundaries.
The Chairman asked if hypothetically the pieces the PLC were not interested in were not included in the easement would the PLC then be interested in holding the easement. Paula Bellemore, PLC, pointed out the areas on the plan that the PLC would be interested in holding an easement. She advised that the PLC had strongly stated in the past that they would not work with homeowners' associations regarding easements as it was too difficult to deal with groups of homeowners that may or may not be functioning as a unit. The Chairman asked if the PLC was willing to work with homeowners having an undivided interest. Paula Bellemore, PLC, pointed out that attempting to work with homeowners that had an undivided interest was even more difficult than a homeowners' association.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that a homeowners' association would be created to manage the common property but he noted that it was slightly different than the homeowners owning the land. He acknowledged the concerns the PLC expressed with working with homeowners' associations and agreed that they were valid.
Paula Bellemore, PLC, stated that the PLC currently held an easement on open space for a cluster subdivision in Weare, NH. She explained that the open space was held by the Town of Weare and the easement was held by the PLC. She continued that the subdivision had buffers around the lots similar to the 75’ areas proposed by the applicant that was supposed to be managed by the homeowners' association. She stated that pools and play-sets had been placed in the buffer areas and lawns expanded into vegetative no-cut areas. She explained that because the town had the option of enforcing the covenants and restrictions and did not, the subdivision had been built up to a point where all the covenants and restrictions had been disregarded creating a huge problem.
The Chairman asked if the only choice the PLC was interested in was if the Town owned the open space. Paula Bellemore, PLC, answered that the PLC was most likely only interested in holding a conservation easement if the Town owned the open space. She added that she could bring the option of working with a homeowners' association back to the PLC Board for further discussion.
Mark Suennen reiterated that the PLC required a delineation and site walk to be completed prior the acceptance of a conservation easement. Paula Bellemore, PLC, indicated that she could not accept an easement this evening but stated that conceptually Mark Suennen was correct. Mark Suennen questioned Morgan Hollis, Esq., about the delineation not being possible. Morgan Hollis, Esq., confirmed that Paula Bellemore, PLC, had inquired about the possibility of having the land delineated and he had answered that it would be a very expensive proposition and probably would not happen. He stated that a solution could be reached where the land was deeded to the Town and the areas that the PLC was interested in having the easement were defined and the areas that the PLC did not want were
under the covenants and restrictions. He noted that this solution would provide three layers of protection. He also pointed out that Attorney Drescher voiced a concern with this situation because of the potential for the Town having to deal with homeowner problems. Paula Bellemore, PLC, noted that the Town and PLC worked together on these issues frequently and preferred to work with the Town as it was more effective.
The Chairman asked what other areas in Town the PLC held easements on Town owned land. Paula Bellemore, PLC, answered that there were several areas in Town and it was pretty standard. She stated that if the Town’s goal was only to obtain open space that was not developed then a declaration of covenants may be sufficient. She stated that the land was not necessarily as well protected but there was still an opportunity to enforce.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that with regard to the delineation of the land he advised that the road centerline was recently staked and there was a possibility of further staking. Paula Bellemore, PLC, stated that the corners would need to be set for the project. Morgan Hollis, Esq., clarified that the corners were set only when construction was on going. Paula Bellemore, PLC, suggested the possibility of a guided walk. Morgan Hollis, Esq., indicated that he had not walked the land. Dana Lorden indicated that the process of delineating the land would not be too difficult or expensive. The Chairman added that it was his recollection that the land was wet and hilly and the Town would most likely not be interested in obtaining the land for the purposes of creating a park.
Paula Bellemore, PLC, advised that the area from the USAF Tracking Station through the Campbell Swamp area was a very active and important wildlife area and was a reason why the PLC was interested in preserving the land. Laura Bernard, Conservation Commission, added that the Commission was also interested in partnering with the PLC because of the wildlife corridor.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the decision of whether or not the Town accepted ownership of the proposed land was determined by the Planning Board. The Coordinator answered that the Selectmen would need to weigh in on the matter. Morgan Hollis, Esq., added that the Ordinance was subject to acceptance and clarified that the applicant proposed, the Board would approve, and then it would be subject to acceptance of the Selectmen.
The Chairman stated that it appeared a decision was not ready to be determined at this meeting. Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that the Board needed to make a decision on how the applicant could proceed. The Chairman stated that the PLC was not comfortable with making any decisions until a site walk was completed and the Board of Selectmen needed to review the matter before a final decision could be determined. Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that the applicant could not proceed with this project until the Board made a determination. Dwight Lovejoy stated that he could bring this matter to the Board of Selectmen.
The Chairman asked Morgan Hollis, Esq., about the PLC’s issue of not wanting the landlocked piece of conservation land. Morgan Hollis, Esq., answered that if the Board determined that the Town should own the land subject to the Board of Selectmen he would then go to the Board of Selectmen for the purpose of obtaining a definitive answer on the matter. He continued that he would propose that the Town accept the land subject to a set of covenants and restrictions that prevent any activity in the conservation areas. He further stated that the applicant would mark out the area with the PLC that they wanted to accept. He explained that the end result would be two separate types of conservation controls. He pointed to the plan and stated that the green area would remain
under the control of conservation with the bulk of it under an easement benefiting the PLC. He noted that the remainder of the land would be covered under restrictions and covenants that would be enforceable by the Town, the PLC, the Conservation Commission, and DES. He also identified an area on the plan that would be owned by the Town without restrictions.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., indicated that the applicant was happy to proceed in whatever direction the Board favored.
The Chairman asked for Mark Suennen’s opinion on the matter. Mark Suennen stated that the applicant had made a convincing argument for the 75’ buffer around the exterior of the lots. He continued that if 75' was needed for the reserved rights around the lots, how did the proposed 25' strip between the two sets of lots by the cul-de-sac meet the requirements. Morgan Hollis, Esq., answered that ideally he would like to have all 75’ but it did not exist. He pointed out that the buffer had to be built in because the land would be conveyed; if the land remained with the property owners or a homeowners' association, the buffer would not be needed.
Mark Suennen believed that the Board should recommend that the Board of Selectmen consider the ownership of the proposed open space land. The Chairman agreed with Mark Suennen. Dwight Lovejoy advised that he would bring the matter before the Board of Selectmen for an opinion.
The Chairman asked Morgan Hollis, Esq., if there were any other matters he wished to discuss. Morgan Hollis, Esq., answered that there was nothing further to discuss this evening and that he would await feedback from the Town Engineer with regard to the recently submitted revised plans. He requested that the Board adjourn the hearing to the next scheduled meeting in December.
The Coordinator noted that she was still waiting for the off-site road improvements amount from the Road Committee.
The Chairman requested that the applicant submit a withdrawal for the Suitable Building Envelope Lines waiver request in writing. Jeff Rider, P.E., asked in what form the Coordinator would accept the withdrawal. The Coordinator answered that a letter withdrawing the waiver would be sufficient.
Mark Suennen pointed out that the Traffic, Environmental, and Fiscal Impact Studies still needed to be addressed. Morgan Hollis, Esq., questioned whether the Board could address the studies at the next hearing. Mark Suennen indicated that he would be willing to address the Traffic Impact Study. He continued that he wanted to further review the Fiscal Impact Study and that he would not be ready to address the Environmental Impact Study until the Town Engineer reviewed it. The Chairman asked the Board to be ready with comments and/or questions regarding the Traffic and Fiscal Impact Studies for discussion at the next meeting.
The Chairman asked if the applicant was willing to agree to an extension of the statutory deadlines. Morgan Hollis, Esq., agreed to the extension.
Dwight Lovejoy MOVED to adjourn the hearing for Frederick K. Lorden Revocable Trust (Owner), Harvey J. Dupuis Family Trust (Owner), Shiv K. Shrestha (Applicant), Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/42 Lots W/Open Space, Location: Mccurdy Road &
Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 12/96 & 12/93-34 and to extend the deadline for Planning Board action to December 14, 2010, at 8:45 p.m.
Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
NEVILLE, DENISE M. & JOHN E. Adjourned from October 26, 2010
Work Session/Design Review/NRSPR
Development of lot to accommodate commercial building.
Location: Whipplewill Road
Tax/Map Lot #3/63-24
Commercial “Com” District
Present in the audience was Laura Bernard, Conservation Commission.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice and noted that the applicant had requested a postponement of the above-referenced work session via email dated November 16, 2010, from Earl Sandford, LLS. He explained that the applicant had had surgery the previous day and was unable to attend the scheduled work session.
The Chairman advised that the applicant did have the previously discussed meeting with abutters; however, no solid concessions were made on either side.
The Chairman stated that the applicant had been sent a letter from Town Counsel as had been requested.
Mark Suennen asked if the Board was obligated to schedule the adjourned work session for a full hour, noting that the work session had been postponed twice and two hours had been wasted. The Coordinator explained that the Board was not obligated to schedule the work session for one hour. She pointed out that the Board could run into problems if something was scheduled after the work session and the session ran over the allotted time. The Chairman asked if the work session was currently the last item scheduled on the December 28, 2010, agenda. The Coordinator confirmed that it was the last item on the December 28, 2010, agenda. Mark Suennen pointed out zoning issues would also be discussed at the December 28, 2010, meeting.
The Chairman asked what zoning items would be involved in the public hearing scheduled for December 28, 2010. The Coordinator advised that the Sign Ordinance, parking, and the issue of zoning for agricultural and residential use.
The Chairman stated that he wanted to find the right balance between allowing people to speak and keeping the meeting agenda on time. He was of the opinion that the work session be scheduled for one-half hour.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the work session of Denise M. & John E. Neville,
Location: Whipplewill Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/63-24, to December 28, 2010, at 8:00 p.m. for a one-half hour session. Dwight Lovejoy seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF November 23, 2010
4a. Proposal for Professional Engineering Services, from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, for the Board’s action.
4b.Letter from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Geotechnical Consultant – Request for Proposals, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman addressed items 4a and 4b together as they were related. He explained that Northpoint Engineering had been asked by the Board to request cost proposals from geotechnical consultants to ensure that rates were competitive. He stated that after reviewing the information it did not appear that there was a much of a difference between the bids.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator what the Board needed to act on. The Coordinator answered the that Board needed to forward the recommendation to the Selectmen that Northpoint Engineering stay on as the Town’s consulting engineer. She continued that the contract would be signed by the Board of Selectmen and not the Planning Board.
The Chairman asked if the current engineer's rates were changing. The Coordinator answered that the rates would be in the amount of $85.00 per hour for the principal engineer and $75.00 per hour for the project engineer, which remained the same as last year.
The Chairman asked for Mark Suennen’s position on the matter. Mark Suennen stated that he was abstaining from this matter as it posed a potential conflict of interest.
The Chairman asked for Dwight Lovejoy’s position on the matter. Dwight Lovejoy stated that he did not have any information with regard to the above-referenced proposal. The Chairman stated that he believed the Town Engineer had done a good job and there did not seem to be any problems to that regard. He continued that he did not see any reason to forward a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen.
Mark Suennen provided Dwight Lovejoy with a history on this matter, noting that this would be the third year in a row without a rate increase.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if this matter could be determined at the next meeting when a quorum was present. The Coordinator advised that the current contract for the geotechnical consultant had expired as of November 15, 2010, so the Board needed to act on this matter this evening.
The Chairman reiterated that he would recommend the proposal be forwarded to the Board of Selectmen with the request that the contract be extended to 13 months so that it ran to the end of the year.
10. Memorandum with attachments dated November 22, 2010, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Planning Board Members, re: Cul-de-sac Information, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that the memorandum contained detailed information regarding the history of the cul-de-sacs, information relative to surrounding towns' handling of the cul-de-sac length issue, and addressed the questions that had been originally requested from the Technical Review Committee in their letter to the Board of Selectmen. He noted that the memorandum also included some language that the Board may want to consider adding to the Subdivision Regulations.
The Chairman stated that with the exception of the Road Committee, his impression of the Selectmen’s Meeting regarding cul-de-sacs was that no one was going to change their opinions on the matter. He continued that it was suggested that at the meeting that the issue be placed before the voters at the Town Meeting and accept the outcome of the vote. Mark Suennen pointed out that the wording of the question was absolutely critical.
The Coordinator believed that the Board needed to determine whether or not the language in the Subdivision Regulations was the best way to deal with roads. She also advised that any question placed on the ballot that did anything other than change the Zoning Ordinance would be non-binding on the Planning Board.
It was Dwight Lovejoy’s opinion that it was public assumption that the Planning Board was breaking the law when they granted cul-de-sac length waivers. He continued that he was unsure that the individuals who were against the cul-de-sac length waivers could be educated on the matter. The Chairman pointed out that a huge article ran in the New Boston Bulletin that contained strong language and made it sound like everyone was being put at risk. He noted that a public meeting was announced which very few people from the public attended. He stated that he understood the safety departments' position; however, he noted that the Planning Board acted in the best interest of the Town and not every subdivision could have a cookie cutter approach applied to it.
Laura Bernard, Conservation Commission, asked if anyone from the Conservation Commission attended the Board of Selectmen’s meeting on cul-de-sacs. The Chairman advised that no members from the Conservation Commission attended the meeting. He went on to say that Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, had advised the Board that he would not be able to attend the meeting as he was traveling out of state and provided the Commission’s policy on impervious surfaces that included cul-de-sacs. He indicated that the policy provided by Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, was read into the record at the meeting. Laura Bernard, Conservation Commission, commented that the article in the New Boston Bulletin regarding cul-de-sacs may have misrepresented the Conservation Commission’s position with regard to cul-de-sac length waivers.
The Chairman stated that Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, had requested a list of information regarding each cul-de-sac length waiver that had been granted; he believed that the information should be provided. He requested that the Board draft a cover letter that would accompany the requested raw data information at the next meeting. Mark Suennen stated that he understood the Chairman’s request but believed that any information provided would not make a difference. He continued that at the end of the day it did not matter to the department heads if a waiver was granted in the amount of 1,001’ or 601’. Dwight Lovejoy pointed out that the safety departments believed that safety was the number one issue and he agreed that safety was a giant concern.
Laura Bernard, Conservation Commission, stated that she had lived on a dead-end street that was longer than 1,000’ feet for the last eleven years. She explained that during the floods and ice-storm emergency personnel would not have been able to reach her home due to other roads in town being blocked. She questioned what the real risk was and how often the concern was valid. She stated that she had no doubt that the Police Chief and Fire Chief were concerned about public safety. Mark Suennen agreed with Laura Bernard, Conservation Commission, and continued that the safety departments did a great job and it was their role to be concerned. Laura Bernard, Conservation Commission, offered that cul-de-sacs were no more dangerous than any other road.
The Chairman requested that the Board review the Coordinator’s proposed wording to the Subdivision Regulations and be ready to discuss at the next meeting.
Mark Suennen asked if the Board was required to make a response to Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief’s, request. The Chairman stated that he believed the Board needed to respond to the request. Mark Suennen agreed that a response was appropriate and suggested that the response should reflect Peter Hogan’s statement from the meeting that the Board appreciated what the safety departments did and appreciated what the various Town departments were responsible for and did and took their recommendations very seriously; however, they were just one factor among many factors that the Board considered.
Dwight Lovejoy asked if the issue of cul-de-sac length waivers was originally addressed for the purposes of limiting growth or for safety. The Chairman answered by suggesting that Dwight Lovejoy review the memorandum and further discuss at the next meeting.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to draft a response to Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief’s, request. He added that a thank-you letter should be sent to the facilitator of the meeting. The Coordinator advised that she had already sent such a letter. Mark Suennen told the Chairman that he thought a letter should be sent to the Fire Chief directly answering his specific data requests.
TWIN BRIDGE LAND MANAGEMENT, LLC Adjourned from October 26, 2010
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/26 Lots
Location: Twin Bridge Rd & West Lull Place
Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 & 3/5
MHP w/R-1 allowance & “R-A” District
Present in the audience was Laura Bernard, Conservation Commission.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He stated that the application was accepted as complete on March 23, 2010, with a deadline for Board action of May 27, 2010. He advised that numerous adjournments had been requested by the applicant. He stated that a letter had been received on November 16, 2010, from Tom Carr, CWS, requesting that the public hearing and statutory deadlines be adjourned from this evening to December 14, 2010.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the public hearing for Twin Bridge Land
Management, LLC, Location: Twin Bridge Road and West Lull Place, Tax/Map Lot #2/62-12 & 3/5, and extend the deadline for Planning Board action to December 14, 2010, at 7:45 p.m. Dwight Lovejoy seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF November 23, 2010
13. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
The Coordinator advised that proposed amendment #1 addressed the proposed way of having a residence on a lot and also allowing an agricultural use. She stated that she had reviewed the proposed language with Town Counsel. She explained that her initial proposed language opened up the town to allowing any agricultural use in a subdivision with a two acre lot, i.e., raising and butchering beef, processing cordwood. She continued that Town Counsel suggested that uses be allowed with a special exception through the ZBA or be allowed by a CUP from the Planning Board. She explained that when a decision was made on how to move forward with this issue an amendment would be proposed to the Zoning Ordinance.
Mark Suennen asked if the Board would use the four criteria for a CUP or would new questions be created. The Coordinator answered that the Board could create their own questions which could mirror the special exception language. Mark Suennen asked if the questions should be built into the Zoning Ordinance. The Coordinator answered yes and informed the Board should they decide to move forward with the special exception a section already existed and would apply. She noted that regardless of what the Board decided a site plan would be required.
The Coordinator advised that the Board needed to make a decision on this matter at the next meeting. responsible for enforcing either choice. The Coordinator answered yes and further stated that approval would be done by either the Planning Board or ZBA.
The Coordinator explained that proposed amendment #2 removed accessory dwelling unit from the list of special exceptions in the "R-A" district as it had been erroneously left there last year. She stated that accessory dwelling unit needed instead to be placed in the list of permitted uses in the “R-A” District.
The Coordinator stated that proposed amendment #3 removed the parking section from the current Zoning Ordinance and replaced it with a new section that included no numbers for minimum parking spaces required and left in the requirement for residential uses to have a minimum of two parking spaces. She noted that the parking numbers would be adopted into the Site Plan Review Regulations should the Zoning amendment go through.
The Coordinator advised that proposed amendment #4 addressed the proposed Sign Ordinance that was previously reviewed. She noted that the definition of signs in Section 602 needed to have “No Trespassing” and “No Hunting” added. She indicated that the definition of structure also needed to be amended in order to make signs exempt from being considered a structure in order to have a 15’ setback.
The Chairman asked if the aforementioned were the only proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance this year. The Coordinator answered yes and stated that she had spoken with Russ Boland, Fire Inspector, and he had no amendments to the Building Code.
The Chairman requested that the Planning Office send an e-mail to Peter Hogan and Dean Mehlhorn advising that a decision needed to be made on proposed amendment #1 at the next meeting.
Mark Suennen asked for Town Counsel’s opinion on proposed amendment #1. The Coordinator answered that Town Counsel generally preferred the special exception but stated that a CUP would work. The Coordinator suggested that the Board review Section 206 of the Zoning Ordinance that addressed special exceptions for any information that they believed was missing and wanted added to the list.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Dwight Lovejoy seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Minutes Approved: 12/28/10
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk
| 
