The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Peter Hogan and Mark Suennen, and Ex-officio Rodney Towne. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Shannon Silver and Recording Clerk Valerie Diaz.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Joel Bedard, Conservation Commission, Dennis McKenney, LLS, Ken Lombard, Open Space Committee, Jeff Rider, P.E., Brandy Mitroff, Morgan Hollis, Esq., Dana Lorden, and Shiv Shrestha.
Discussion, re: Planning Board Goals
The Chairman noted that this evening’s discussion of the Planning Board goals was a continuation of the previous meeting. He noted that the Board had been asked to review the proposals for scopes of work and cost estimates from the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission to update the Town’s Master Plan and the Water Resources Management Plan. Mark Suennen asked how different and/or similar the scope of work and cost estimates were in comparison to the one submitted five years previously by the Southern New Hampshire Commission relative to updates to the Master Plan. The Coordinator pointed out that there were some differences. She explained that a focus group, New Boston Speaks, was utilized during the last update through the Community Profile process.
The Chairman asked if the total estimate amount was $3,400.00 and if any additional work not included in the estimate would be completed by volunteers. The Coordinator answered yes.
The Chairman asked Rodney Towne, in his capacity as a member of the Board of Selectmen, what his thoughts were on asking the Town for funding for this project on the 2011 ballot. Rodney Towne answered that he would be concerned to ask the Town for any funding that was not easily identified as infrastructure based on the current state of the economy.
The Chairman asked if the Water Resources Management Plan had been considered by the Board over the last several years and put off. The Coordinator answered yes. The Chairman asked if there were any statutory requirements to update the Water Resources Management Plan. The Coordinator answered no and explained that the Water Resources Management Plan was a guidance document that was part of the Master Plan.
Rodney Towne commented that he would not hesitate bringing this project forward to the Finance Committee review process. The Chairman asked Rodney Towne for an explanation of the Finance Committee review process. Rodney Towne explained that the Finance Committee made recommendations to the Board of Selectmen after review of budgets and Warrant Article costs.
The Chairman asked for the number of taxpayers in the Town. Rodney Towne estimated that there were between 2,500 and 3,000 taxpayers in Town. Peter Hogan commented that Dodge Farm and The Friendly Beaver were among the highest tax payers in the Town.
The Chairman asked for Mark Suennen’s thoughts on the updates to the Water Resources Management Plan. Mark Suennen stated that he did not see a pressing need for the Water Resources Management Plan to be updated this year; however, he noted that the need for the updates did not become any more pressing as the Town moved forward. At some point it did, however, need to get done.
The Chairman asked for Mark Suennen’s opinion on updating the Master Plan. Mark Suennen believed that the updates to the Master Plan needed to be completed. He stated that the cost to update the Master Plan was under $5,000.00 which he believed to be justifiable. The Chairman agreed with Mark Suennen’s thoughts on both projects and pointed out that it had been twenty-one years since the Water Resources Management Plan had been adopted.
Joel Bedard, Conservation Commission, stated that he was interested in hearing more about the Water Resources Management Plan. He added that the Commission did have a budget for such expenses and may be able to assist in the covering the costs. He explained that he would need to bring information back to the Commission for further review. The Board gave Joel Bedard, Conservation Commission, a copy of the proposals for the scope of work and cost estimate from the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission for updating the Water Resources Management Plan.
The Chairman asked for Peter Hogan’s thoughts on this matter. Peter Hogan believed that the Town should not be spending any money unless it was absolutely necessary. He added that it would not be detrimental to postpone updates to the Master Plan for a few years. He stated that he wanted to wait and hear back from the Conservation Commission before making a decision about postponing updates to the Water Resources Management Plan. He commented that the Board needed to be careful when completing updates to the Master Plan because although it was not a binding document it was typically interpreted as such. It was Peter Hogan’s opinion that the Town was better off waiting to making updates than making updates for the sake of making updates.
The Chairman pointed out that it made sense to postpone the Master Plan update for one year in order to have the census data that was needed completed and available. He asked the Coordinator if any statutory requirements prohibited the Board from postponing the updates for one year. The Coordinator answered no.
The consensus of the Board was to postpone updates to the Master Plan for one year and table the Water Resources Management Plan until the Conservation Commission had an opportunity to review and make a decision on funding.
Mark Suennen questioned whether the Water Resources Management Plan was being presented to the Conservation Commission as an “all or nothing” project. Joel Bedard, Conservation Commission, stated that he would be presenting to the Commission on the basis of an “all or nothing” project as the scope of the update appeared to be comprehensive. Rodney Towne commented that hypothetically if the Conservation Commission was interested in funding 75% of the project the Board should look into funding the remaining 25%. Joel Bedard, Conservation Commission, added that he would also be reaching out to the Gordon Russell Foundation and the PLC.
The Chairman asked if there was any interest from the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee to do anything this year. The Coordinator advised that she had spoken with Jon
Willard, Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee, earlier that day and he had explained that he was not interested in presenting to the Board at this time because the Committee had previously presented their recommendations and it was now the Board’s responsibility to decide how to move forward. The Chairman commented that the Board needed to review the recommendations of the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee in detail.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to follow-up with the discussion from the last meeting regarding parking. The Coordinator advised that many towns had removed parking from their Zoning Ordinances and addressed it in the Site Plan Review Regulations. She noted that relocating the Town’s parking regulations to the Site Plan Review Regulations would be a legal and easy option. The Chairman asked if the Board would vote to remove the parking regulations from the Zoning Ordinance, followed by a public hearing and a vote to relocate the parking regulations into the Site Plan Review Regulations. The Coordinator answered yes. The Chairman asked for comments or questions from the Board with regard to this matter. Rodney Towne, Mark Suennen, and Peter Hogan agreed to move forward with
removing the parking regulations from the Zoning Ordinance.
The Chairman asked the Board members to review the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee recommendations and be ready for discussion at the next meeting.
The Chairman asked for a status update of the Sign Committee. The Coordinator advised that review of the signage regulations had been going well and the Committee was not expected to meet again until November 2010.
The Coordinator stated that she had not heard from Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, with regard to the Fire Wards’ position on the proposed cistern regulations. She added that she had spoken with Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, relative to a comment made by Peter Hogan at the last meeting about the sprinklers and cisterns issue. She indicated that Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, would address the matter with the Fire Wards and make a decision on whether they would like to present anything to the Board.
Peter Hogan commented that the Fire Wards and Fire Chief should stop requesting both cisterns and sprinkler systems unless they intended to change the regulations. The Coordinator clarified that the regulations allowed for the Fire Wards and/or Fire Chief to request both cisterns and sprinkler systems. Peter Hogan disagreed with the Coordinator that the regulations did not allow for the Fire Wards and/or Fire Chief to make the request the way they do. The Coordinator advised that the regulations did allow for the Fire Wards and/or Fire Chief to make the requests in the manner that they have and pointed out that if the Board was unhappy with the regulations a proposal to amend the Subdivision Regulations could be done. Peter Hogan further argued that the Fire Wards and Fire Chief did not provide
justifications for their requests as they had represented they would. The Coordinator pointed out that the Fire Wards and Fire Chief had provided justifications for the request of both a cistern and sprinkler systems with regard to the Forest View Subdivision. She noted that the justifications could be found within the Forest View Subdivision packet. Peter Hogan asked the Coordinator to list the justifications. She stated that the justifications for both a cistern and sprinkler system were distance from the Fire Station, outlying buildings, the nature of the land, and proximity of the houses as it was an Open Space Subdivision. She added that she did not have the information available to her at the moment and could not make a complete list of the justifications.
The Coordinator located the email with the enumerated justifications and provided it to Peter Hogan. Peter Hogan believed that the minutes from previous meetings relative to discussions surrounding sprinkler systems versus cisterns would reflect that not one of the five justifications provided by the Fire Wards and Fire Chief were located in the Regulations. He added that Jay Marden and Douglas Hill would both remember the discussion as he did. The Chairman commented that he needed to review the minutes Peter Hogan was referencing, as he was not a member of the Board at the time of the discussion.
Peter Hogan stated that when the Board had agreed to switch to sprinkler systems from cisterns, the Fire Wards, Dick Moody and Dan MacDonald, had had an in depth discussion with the Board that sprinkler systems would be integral to the domestic water system. The Coordinator pointed out that at subsequent meetings and after further discussion it did not end up being that way. Peter Hogan commented that a step was skipped between the Fire Wards representing the sprinkler system that was part of the domestic water system; there were no tanks, no pumps, a calculation was even given as to how deep a well would have to be to in order to be considered to contain enough reserve water to suppress a fire. Peter Hogan stated that basically the Planning Board signed off on that kind of system because they were
under the impression that the estimate for that was $2,500.00 - $3,000.00 per house and then it was voted on by the Town. The Coordinator added that the regulation was located in the Subdivision Regulations and voted on by the Board not the Town. Peter Hogan questioned how it made it into the Subdivision Regulations without any discussion of the entire system being changed. Rodney Towne asked what it was changed to from the original discussion. Peter Hogan answered that [it] was changed to a NFPA specifications sprinkler system with tanks and everything the Board did not want. The Coordinator pointed out that the Board could not comment on the way cisterns were constructed, materials used, or the installation of them because they had to meet certain standards and the same was true for sprinkler systems as they needed to meet life safety standards. She explained that when the Fire Wards learned that the sprinkler system they had planned on requiring did
not work they needed to find a system that would. She pointed out that the installation of sprinkler systems or a cistern was always the developer’s choice. Peter Hogan stated that the Fire Wards and Fire Chief were requiring that both the cistern and sprinkler systems be installed. The Coordinator disagreed with Peter Hogan and pointed out that the only subdivision the Fire Wards and Fire Chief were recommending that both a cistern and sprinkler system be installed was for the Forest View Subdivision. Peter Hogan believed that the Fire Wards and Fire Chief had wanted both cistern and sprinkler systems installed in Douglas Hill’s subdivision. He added that he could not remember a case in which the Fire Wards and Fire Chief did not want both the cistern and sprinkler system. He further added that Dick Moody, Fire Ward, had stated that they wanted to require both the installation of cisterns and sprinkler systems. The Coordinator stated
that the Subdivision Regulations provided that a developer decided on whether to install a cistern or sprinkler systems and the Regulations also allowed for the Fire Wards to always be able to request both. Peter Hogan disagreed that the Fire Wards could request both cisterns and sprinkler systems based on the normal topography of New Boston as that would require every subdivision to have both installed. He continued that only extraordinary circumstances should require the installation of both cistern and sprinkler system, i.e., the location of a subdivision on a hill in the middle of a wind corridor that would surely blow fire from the bottom of the hill uphill and burn all the houses. He stated that the five justifications given for the Forest View Subdivision described every subdivision that would ever come before the Board.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the Forest View Subdivision contained a cul-de-sac of less than 1,000’ that was off a through road. The Coordinator clarified that the applicant had proposed Phase 1 to include a 1,000’ road that would be on a through road when construction of Susan Road was completed. She added that Lorden Road would continue and become a through road. The Chairman pointed out that justification #3 was a non-issue as the cul-de-sac was less than 1,000’ and there was a through road. The Coordinator stated that the rationale for justification #3 may have based on the previous measurements of the road beginning at Carriage Road.
The Chairman advised that the Fire Wards and Fire Chief were not requiring that both a cistern and sprinkler system be installed for the Forest View Subdivision but were only requesting that both be installed. Peter Hogan stated that the subtle difference between requiring and requesting was not understood by the Fire Wards and Fire Chief. The Chairman stated that the Board needed to review the justifications given for the request and then make a decision. Mark Suennen stated that all the Planning Board could do was pass on the request from the Fire Wards to the developer and let them choose. He added that the decision to require both a cistern and sprinkler system was not up to the Planning Board. Rodney Towne clarified that the Fire Wards had requested that the Planning Board decide on
their request for both a cistern and sprinkler system. The Coordinator clarified that the developer for the Forest View Subdivision had chosen to install sprinkler systems and the Fire Wards were requesting that the Planning Board require the applicant to also install a 10,000 gallon cistern. She continued that the developer could either choose a 30,000 gallon cistern or sprinkler systems and that the Planning Board needed to decide whether or not to approve the Fire Wards’ request to require an additional 10,000 gallon cistern if sprinklers were installed. Peter Hogan stated that the Fire Wards needed to make a compelling argument for the Planning Board to require the additional 10,000 gallon cistern.
The Chairman read from the Subdivision Regulations, Cistern Regulations, Section,V-F. The Chairman pointed out that the Regulations provided for the Fire Wards to make recommendations and the Board needed to decide whether a sufficient threat to life or property existed due to specific conditions. Rodney Towne commented that the justifications submitted by the Fire Wards and Fire Chief did not include enough information. The Chairman stated that the Board needed to request that the Fire Wards and Fire Chief clarify the justifications they submitted. Rodney Towne suggested that the Subdivision Regulations should include an appendix to explain the criteria that would require an additional cistern to be installed. He noted that if there were certain indicators that might cause the Fire Wards to
request that additional cistern he wanted an applicant to be able to know what those things were prior to beginning the application.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if there were any other Planning Board goals the Board needed to discuss. The Coordinator answered that the Board had covered all the goals. The Chairman suggested that the Board brainstorm about next years goals at the next meeting, i.e., the cordwood business and the horse farm. Peter Hogan agreed and stated that the Board needed to properly define an accessory business. Rodney Towne believed that criteria needed to be established to identify home businesses. The Chairman asked if the criteria were not met did that mean that a business did not exist. Rodney Towne answered yes, that the business would not exist if it did not meet the criteria for a home business. Mark Suennen stated that a secondary structure was either defined as residential
or business. Rodney Towne questioned the criteria that made an operation a home business. Peter Hogan stated that typically to qualify as a home business the business needed to be operated entirely inside the building. Rodney Towne questioned what criteria “tripped” a riding arena into becoming a home business. Peter Hogan answered that a sign and customers would most likely meet the criteria of a home business. Joel Bedard, Conservation Commission, offered that if a tax return were being filled out on income generated from the operation it should be considered a home business. Rodney Towne disagreed with Joel Bedard, Conservation Commission, and stated that he could file a tax return for his horse arena without it being considered a home business. Peter Hogan pointed out that a horse arena could never be considered a home business because the business needed to be conducted inside a building in accordance with the definition.
The Chairman commented that a different definition needed to be created to fit the horse arena situations. Peter Hogan went on to say that an auto-repair business could be conducted entirely inside a building. Rodney Towne pointed out that deliveries to the business would be conducted outside the building. Peter Hogan explained that deliveries to a home business were considered incidental to the business. Peter Hogan asked the Coordinator if someone operating a business within in their home via the internet and/or telephone was required to have a Home Business Site Plan. The Coordinator explained that the Planning Board typically did not require a Site Plan as long as the following four criteria were met: 1) no customers; 2) no signs; 3) no outside storage; and 4) no employees. She stated that this process could be ratified by Town Meeting, however, New Boston operated this as a standard policy. Peter Hogan stated that the courts viewed the
criteria that the Coordinator listed as meeting the definition for a home business and that the horse arena business and the auto-repair business would be a commercial operation; he noted that historically the Board never viewed the businesses as the court did. The Coordinator pointed out that a cordwood business in Town had erroneously been labeled a Home Business. She continued that the issue that the Board had wanted to fix was allowing an agricultural business to operate on the same lot as a primary residence and not the Home Business definition because it worked as it was written. Peter Hogan disagreed with the Coordinator that the definition of Home Business worked as it was written. The Coordinator suggested that the permitted uses listed for a Home Business and Agricultural business be reviewed.
The Chairman suspended the discussion on this matter and stated that it could continue at a future Planning Board Goals discussion.
The Chairman advised audience members that the 9:00 p.m. scheduled public hearing for the Twin Bridge Land Management Subdivision had been canceled.
TOWNES FAMILY TRUST
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: South Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #13/37
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Present in the audience were Dennis McKenney, LLS, Joel Bedard, Conservation Commission, Ken Lombard, Open Space Committee, Brandy Mitroff, and Jeff Rider, P.E.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He stated that the application had been accepted as complete on September 14, 2010, and the deadline for Board action was November 18, 2010. He advised that the site walk notes had been completed and a letter had been received dated September 14, 2010, from Christopher Danforth, CWS, CPESC, CPSWQ, relative to jurisdictional wetlands in the designated two acre building envelope and margins. He noted that waivers had been requested for the Traffic, Fiscal, and Environmental Impact Studies. The Chairman invited Dennis McKenney, LLS, to address the Board with any issues.
Dennis McKenney, LLS, provided the Board with revised plans dated October 12, 2010, which incorporated changes from the most recent Planning Board letter as well as the letter dated September 14, 2010. He stated that topographical and wetlands information had been submitted to the Board via facsimile on September 28, 2010.
The Chairman stated that a previous meeting the Board and applicant had agreed that topography would be mapped on the section of the lot where a house could exist and following the site walk the Board would determine whether or not sufficient information had been provided.
The Chairman asked for an explanation of the waiver request of the 5’ topographic contours. Dennis McKenney, LLS, advised that there were 2’ contours that covered the building envelope and significant area around it within the confines of the tract of land that had been surveyed.
The Chairman asked Dennis McKenney, LLS, to address the waiver request for watercourses and ponds. Dennis McKenney, LLS, explained that no watercourses and/or ponds existed in the area that had been surveyed and also did not exist within the building envelope around the existing dwelling.
The Chairman asked Dennis McKenney, LLS, to address the waiver request for natural features. Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that the margin of the woods was shown on the plan in the area of potential development.
The Chairman asked Dennis McKenney, LLS, to address the waiver request for the acreage breakdown. Dennis McKenney, LLS, advised that the gross area was provided for each tract. The Coordinator explained that the Board was interested in the acreage breakdown to prove the 1.5 acres dry land required by Zoning. Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that a letter dated September 14, 2010, from Chris Danforth, CWS, relative to the wetlands on the proposed building site had been submitted and read the following: “It is therefore, my professional opinion that there are no jurisdictional wetlands within the vicinity of this 2 acre building envelope.".
The Chairman asked if there were any restrictions to prevent the building envelope from moving to the back of lot. Rodney Towne answered that the building envelope could not be moved until an applicant requested permits from the Town. The Coordinator added that there was a note on the plan that required the applicant to obtain a Dredge and Fill and CUP if wetlands would be impacted by any future development. She continued that if critical areas were to be impacted the applicant would need to have a SWMP.
The Chairman asked if the septic and test pits had been completed. Dennis McKenney, LLS, advised that the septic and test pits had been completed and yielded the following results: seasonal high water table, no observed bedrock, and perked at eight minutes per inch on September 18, 2010.
The Chairman asked if waiver request for the watershed computations still stood as written. Dennis McKenney, LLS, answered yes and noted that he had submitted the waiver request on September 14, 2010.
The Chairman asked if the Board was satisfied with what the applicant had submitted with regard to the 5’ contours in conjunction with the site walk. Mark Suennen answered that the applicant had met the spirit and intent of regulations.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the waiver for the 5’ topographic contours because the applicant has provided 2’ contours in the area which would prove that the lot is a buildable lot for subdivision. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the waiver to not provide Watercourses and Ponds for the entire seventy-seven acre parcel; the applicant has provided any and all watercourses and ponds within the buildable area proving that it is in fact a buildable lot for subdivision, meeting the spirit and intent of the regulation. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the waiver for the Natural Features to be shown on the entire seventy-seven acre lot because the applicant has demonstrated all natural features within the building envelope showing that the lot is a buildable lot for subdivision, meeting the spirit and intent of the regulations. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked if the applicant was going to withdraw the waiver request for the septic and test pits as they had been previously completed. Dennis McKenney, LLS, indicated that he would withdraw the waiver request.
Peter Hogan MOVED to waive the Watershed Computations, Traffic Impact Study, andEnvironmental Impact Study for the reasons previously noted. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the waiver to avoid having the acreage breakdown on the plan based on the letter from Chris Danforth, CWS, CPSESC, CPSWQ, dated September 14, 2010. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked if Dennis McKenney, LLS, had received a copy of the notes from the plan review. Dennis McKenney, LLS, answered that he had received a letter from the Planning Board last week and had made the requested changes to the plan. He advised that he had revised note 8 to apply only to lot #13/37 and had provided topographical information on the plans.
Dennis McKenney, LLS, asked if the subdivision was approved would the Board require topographical information on the final plan that would be recorded or only the plan provided to the Planning Office. Rodney Towne asked why the Board would require the topographical information to be on the recorded plan. The Coordinator explained that it did not matter. Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that the plan was harder to understand with the topographical information on it. He went on to say the Registry of Deeds was interested in boundary lines and the topographical information would not affect that information. The Chairman clarified that the applicant would provide two sheets for the plan – one plan to be recorded and one with topo that would be held in the office.
The Chairman asked if any members of the Board that attended the site walk had any comments to add to the site walk notes. Mark Suennen stated that the site walk reflected the plan.
The Chairman asked for any further questions or comments; there were none.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the Major Subdivision Plan of Land of Townes Family Trust, Tax Map/Lot #13/37, 2 Lots, South Hill Road, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
- Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections, notes of waivers granted and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
- Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F,
4. An 'Individual Stormwater Management Plan' (ISWMP) to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit, will be required for land disturbance or development in 'Critical Areas' (both those designated on the plan or created during development). For building permits requiring an ISWMP, Certificates of Occupancy will only be issued after receipt of a 'Stormwater Management Plan Adherence Statement' as specified in the New Boston Subdivision Regulations.
5. Deeds for each lot shall have the following statement: 'The property herein described is subject to the following condition as described in the recorded subdivision plan referenced above: A Stormwater Management Plan will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit if any land is to be disturbed in the designated or created Critical Areas.'.
6. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
7. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD. The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be November 12, 2010, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning
Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve Driveway Permit #10-31, Tax Map/Lot #13/37, location: South Hill Road, with the standard Planning Board requirements:
1. The driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of ten foot (10') radii minimum; and 2) The driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60 - 90 degrees.
Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that he would add a note to plan to identify that Sheet 2 of plan contained the contours.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF October 12, 2010
1. Approval of minutes of September 14, 2010, distributed by email.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the meeting minutes of September 14, 2010, as written. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Execution of a Site Review Agreement for Michael J. & Janie A. Boyle, Tax Map/Lot #14/56-7, 45 Barss Dr., by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman executed the above-referenced Site Review Agreement.
3. Sign Committee meeting minutes of September 30, 2010, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
5. READ FILE: Notice of Annual Fall Planning and Zoning Conference, Saturday,November 13, 2010.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
7. Distribution of the September 28, 2010, meeting minutes via email for approval at the meeting of October 26, 2010.
8. Daily Road inspection reports dated September 9, 10, and 13, 2010, from NorthpointEngineering, LLC, re: SHB Properties, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
9. Daily road inspection reports dated September and October 2010, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: SIB Trust, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion
occurred.
6. The following four items are for the Board’s review and discussion:
a. Email received October 7, 2010, from Stuart Lewin, Planning Board Chairman, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, re: Request Board of Selectmen’s meeting Cul-de-Sacs.
b. Letter copy dated September 16, 2010, from New Boston Fire Department and various Town Departments, re: “Residents at Risk”.
c. Copy of newspaper article, titled; “Residents on Long Cul-de-Sacs May Be At Risk!”, published in New Boston Bulletin, October issue.
d. Draft of public notice posting, re: Cul-de-Sac meeting.
The Chairman advised that he had sent a request to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, to schedule the Board of Selectmen’s meeting regarding cul-de-sacs to a date that would allow the Board to have a couple of meetings and conduct the requested research. He stated that the Coordinator had drafted a notice of the meeting that invited interested parties to attend and provide input.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the Board of Selectmen had proposed a date for the meeting. The Coordinator stated that she had not heard back from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, with regard to a date different than the originally proposed November 8th date.
The Chairman asked Brandy Mitroff when was the deadline to submit items for the November issue of the New Boston Bulletin. Brandy Mitroff answered that the deadline for submittal was Friday, October 15, 2010.
Rodney Towne stated that he would provide the Board with a date for the Selectmen’s meeting regarding cul-de-sacs by October 13, 2010.
Brandy Mitroff reviewed the draft notice for the New Boston Bulletin and commented that the line “similar to the meeting we held on April 15th” may not be understood by people other than the Technical Review Committee, Board of Selectmen, and Planning Board. She suggested removing the line to make the notice shorter and crisper. The Chairman pointed out that individuals were present at the April 15th meeting that were not members of the committees mentioned. He added that it also contradicted the article, “Residents on Long Cul-de-Sacs May Be At Risk!”, published in New Boston Bulletin, October issue, that the Planning Board was very closed about this issue. He continued that a public hearing was held on April 15th where a lot of input was provided.
The Chairman stated that ideally the Planning Board would make a presentation to the Board of Selectmen with the information requested, unless the Board of Selectmen had a different direction of how to proceed.
Peter Hogan asked if the Coordinator would be providing the twenty-five cul-de-Sac length waivers with the justifications for each waiver highlighted. The Chairman answered that the Coordinator would be providing that information. He also believed that the timeline of the approved waivers should be addressed. Peter Hogan pointed out that the article claimed the Board disregarded Town Ordinances which was not the case as cul-de-sacs were governed by the Town’s Subdivision Regulations. He added that the Subdivision Regulations allowed for cul-de-Sac length to be waived. He went on to say that the Technical Review Committee served as an advisory committee to the Board and did not have voting authority.
Joel Bedard, Conservation Commission, asked if it would benefit the Board to note the instances where the Commission was in support of the cul-de-sac length waivers. The Chairman answered yes and indicated that the Board planned on providing that information. Peter Hogan wanted the information of the benefits to the Town that had occurred when waivers were granted.
The Chairman stated that the next two Planning Board meetings would have time dedicated under Miscellaneous Business to this discussion. Peter Hogan questioned if the Board was going to provide contrary safety information. He added that the Board did not disregard the Technical Review Committee’s opinions; rather the Board weighed them against other facts that were available to them. The Chairman agreed that Peter Hogan’s points were topics that should be addressed. He added that comments from the Road Committee and School should also be addressed.
Brandy Mitroff asked the Board if they envisioned the meeting with the Board of Selectmen to be a “pissing contest”. The Chairman answered no. Brandy Mitroff went on to ask if the Board envisioned a constructive meeting where both sides tried to understand each other. The Chairman stated that the Board was not interested in conducting a “pissing contest” because that would not solve any of the issues. He continued that he wanted to clearly state for the record all of the incorrect facts that were included in the article as well as clearly illustrate the Planning Board’s process.
It was Brandy Mitroff’s opinion that New Boston was in the minority of Towns that approved cul-de-sac length waivers. She continued that after speaking with land surveyors it seemed that most towns believed that waivers should be granted in hundreds of feet. She went on to say that New Boston was the only town granting cul-de-sac length waivers in thousands of feet and she did not understand why a regulation even existed. The Chairman pointed out that issues arose when only the length of waiver request was reviewed and the rest of the considerations the Board reviewed were not taken into account. Brandy Mitroff stated that other towns were faced with the same exact scenarios and it appeared that they held to their maximum length. The Chairman stated that a possible solution for this problem could be
removing the maximum length from the Regulations. Peter Hogan pointed out that some towns did not have maximum lengths. Brandy Mitroff stated that the towns that did have the cul-de-sac length waiver maximums seemed to hold to their maximums and did not say, “Oh dear, poor developer, you did not know where your boundaries were or you did not know what your land was; we’ll help you out”. Peter Hogan questioned why Brandy Mitroff thought the Board had ever approached a cul-de-sac length waiver request in the way she described. Brandy Mitroff stated that the Board recently did approach a waiver request in the way she described. Peter Hogan disagreed with Brandy Mitroff’s statement and explained that the Board had reviewed the subdivision in question and determined that the alternative through road was not the best option. Brandy Mitroff disagreed that the entire Board agreed with Peter Hogan as Mark Suennen was absent from
the vote and did not support the cul-de-sac length waiver. Mark Suennen agreed that he would have voted no to the cul-de-sac length waiver requested.
The Chairman stated that the letter submitted by the Technical Review Committee had requested that the Planning Board appear before the Board of Selectmen and explain their decisions. Mark Suennen read the following from the letter referenced above: “We request the Selectmen investigate and use any means necessary to curtail the Planning Board’s actions”. Mark Suennen’s interpretation of the request was that the Technical Review Committee wanted the Board to repeal their decisions or prevent the Planning Board from making decisions in the future. Rodney Towne pointed out that the Board of Selectmen did not have the authority to move forward with either one of Mark Suennen’s comments. Mark Suennen disagreed with Rodney Towne and stated that the Board of Selectmen had the authority to
rescind the Planning Board members' appointments in an effort curtail the decision making.
Brandy Mitroff commented that there was a lot of frustration from both sides. She also stated that she had not considered the standards for approval of a waiver until a Board member had pointed them out. The Chairman stated that the standards to which Brandy Mitroff was referring had only been in effect for two of the most recent applications. Brandy Mitroff stated that the spirit and intent had always been discussed regardless of whether it was written in a regulation. She went on to say that any logical person when considering a waiver request would not entertain a request for thousands of feet. She questioned again the reasoning for a having a maximum length if the Board was going to regularly waive it. The Chairman reiterated that a solution may be to drop the length requirement.
Peter Hogan stated that the Board was seeing more subdivisions being proposed on sensitive pieces of land. He continued that applicants had the ability to develop land that may not have been developable years ago and as such the length and extension of cul-de-sacs were used as tools to protect critical areas. Joel Bedard, Conservation Commission, pointed out that the many iterations of the Twin Bridge Land Management plan were presented to the Fire and Police Departments and they would not support the subdivision. He continued that the Commission moved forward with the subdivision applying what would be most logical for the conservation of the land.
The Chairman invited Brandy Mitroff to attend the next two Planning Board meetings where this discussion would resume.
Mark Suennen stated that the Planning Board needed to remember that it was not their meeting and they were at the Selectmen’s beck and call. The Chairman commented that the Board should appear before the Board of Selectmen prepared.
Brandy Mitroff urged the Board not to come forward with the first presentation at the Selectmen’s meeting in order not to usurp the department heads. The Chairman stated that it was the Board of Selectmen’s meeting and they would decide how to run it. He continued that the Board would appear for the meeting and be prepared with the information that had been requested of them.
Brandy Mitroff suggested that the Selectmen should hire a trained facilitator to help everyone listen to each other. Rodney Towne indicated that was what the Selectmen would be doing.
FREDERICK K. LORDEN REVOCABLE TRUST (OWNER)
HARVEY J. DUPUIS FAMILY TRUST (OWNER)
S & R HOLDINGS, LLC (APPLICANT)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/42 Lots
Location: McCurdy & Susan Roads
Tax Map/Lot #12/19, 96 & 93-34
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Present in the audience were Joel Bedard, Conservation Commission, Ken Lombard, Morgan Hollis, Esq., Shiv Shrestha, Dana Lorden, and Jeff Rider, P.E.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He advised that the application was determined to be complete at the August 24, 2010, meeting with a deadline for Board action of October 28, 2010. He noted that if the applicant was adjourned to the October 26, 2010, meeting it would still be inside the 65 days statutory requirement. He advised that the Board had received correspondence dated October 10, 2010, from Kevin Leonard, P.E., with regard to the drainage review as well as correspondence dated October 6, 2010, from Jeff Rider, P.E., regarding Northpoint Engineering’s September 28, 2010, plan review letter. He noted that no revised plans had been submitted. He invited the applicant to address the Board.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., indicated that Cuoco & Cormier, Inc., had sent a letter to the Coordinator that contained items that they believed the Board should discuss as well as an outline of their issues. He continued that Shannon Silver, Planning Assistant, had responded to the letter from Cuoco & Cormier, Inc., pointing out that there were additional items that needed to be addressed. He stated that he would go through the list of concerns with the Board that required input in order to create a final plan.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., referenced the letter dated September 28, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering and identified the following item numbers that he would review with the Board: 3, 5, 11, 13, 14, 16, 95, and 113. He stated that item #3 addressed the right-of-way on McCurdy Road. He explained that Northpoint Engineering had suggested that the Board consider requesting that the applicant provide a strip of land along the subject property frontage to provide 25’ from the roadway centerline. He advised that the applicant could not provide the strip of land as Northpoint Engineering had suggested and asked the Board not to make it a requirement. He stated that early on in the process the previous applicant had obtained permits from the State and had locked in the amount of dedicated open space. He explained
that if the Board required the applicant to donate the land in question it would take away from the originally locked in open space. He added that the applicant would be forced to start the project over again which would not only be difficult but almost impossible. Jeff Rider, P.E., pointed out the area in question and Morgan Hollis, Esq., noted that the area would not affect the travelled way. Jeff Rider, P.E., stated that the Town would most likely not use the portion of the right-of-way to widen the road because of the existing wetlands. The Chairman asked for the total amount of open space. Jeff Rider, P.E., answered that 95 acres was open space. The Chairman pointed out that the percentage that would be donated to the Town was a small amount. Morgan Hollis, Esq., agreed that the amount was miniscule but noted that the State of New Hampshire had already described and identified the land as being donated and it was approved. He
noted that another option that may be suggested would be an easement over the open space; however, he noted that the State most likely would not be in favor of such a remedy because the easement would be over critical wet areas. Mark Suennen asked if a new application would be required or an amended permit if the Board decided to require Northpoint Engineering’s request. Morgan Hollis, Esq., answered that it was hard to know but believed the process would begin with an amendment and end with DES requiring that the applicant start over. Mark Suennen stated that if the applicant requested an amendment from DES and was advised that a new application was required that would allow the Board to grant the waiver on the basis of unnecessary burden to the applicant. Morgan Hollis, Esq., pointed out the previous applicant had discussions with the Board regarding this matter and a determination had been made not to seek the widening of the road. Jeff Rider,
P.E., pointed out that the Army Corps of Engineers was also involved in the negotiations. The Chairman asked the Coordinator about the discussion of this matter with the previous Board. The Coordinator advised that she did not recall the discussion and would need to check the meeting minutes.
Mark Suennen asked what entity would own the open space land. Morgan Hollis, Esq., answered that the open space land would be deeded to the Town and would be subject to a conservation easement held by the PLC, if they chose to accept it. Mark Suennen clarified that the land in question was apparently going to be owned by the Town anyway. Morgan Hollis, Esq., confirmed that Mark Suennen’s statement was correct and if necessary the required amendment with DES could be done in the future.
Mark Suennen stated that he was in favor of not requiring Northpoint Engineering’s suggestion on this matter, noting that the applicant was in the process of trying to deed the land to the Town, making it a non-issue. Peter Hogan agreed with Mark Suennen’s statement. Rodney Towne commented that he did not see an issue with the road needing extra right-of-way width in the first place.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., referenced item #5 of the letter dated September 28, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering and read the following: “In all locations where an individual building lot’s building setback is being affected by the 100 foot perimeter buffer, we recommend that the plan clearly explain why this is occurring. It is critical that this be documented so that lot development respects this buffer. If not clearly documented this buffer could be overlooked by the Building Department and/or septic designer when the lot construction moves forward. It may be advisable to mention the buffer in the deed of the affected properties”. He stated that the applicant did not have a problem agreeing to place the requested information in the deeds. Morgan Hollis, Esq., continued that it was his
understanding that the subdivision required a 100’ perimeter buffer and the setback was not exactly the same which created instances where the buffer was greater than the setback. He stated that theoretically someone might buy the land and go to build a house and obtain a septic permit without knowing that the two separate buffers existed. He noted that it was shown on the plan and the applicant did not feel that a note was necessary to point out that where the setbacks overlapped the buffer would prevail.
The Chairman asked for clarification that a plan note would include a couple of sentences explaining the buffer issue. Jeff Rider, P.E., stated that the applicant was unsure of what Northpoint Engineering wanted included in the note. He pointed out the buffer and setback areas that were marked on the plan.
The Chairman questioned Northpoint Engineering’s reasoning for requesting the note. The Coordinator answered that Northpoint Engineering was attempting to call out that an unusual setback existed on the plan. Mark Suennen pointed out that Northpoint Engineering requested that the setback issue be clearly explained and the applicant had suggested doing so in the deed. Jeff Rider, P.E., stated that building was not permitted outside of the setback line. Rodney Towne commented that he did not believe the deed was an appropriate place for the information to be recorded as many people did not read their deeds. Jeff Rider, P.E., pointed out that the plans were fairly cluttered and the applicant was trying to minimize extraneous information on them.
Mark Suennen stated that he was comfortable with placing the setback information in the deeds because it was a legally recorded document and it was the homeowner’s legal obligation to follow. He added the setbacks were on the plan; however, it did not include an explanation of the setbacks. Rodney Towne believed that Mark Suennen’s statement was the only option, noting that it may not be a good one. The Chairman suggested that Northpoint Engineering provide language for the proposed note and the Board could make a determination on this matter at the following meeting. Peter Hogan suggested placing a note on the plan that explained there were deed restrictions on certain parcels. The Board and applicant agreed to Peter Hogan’s suggestion of placing a note on the plan that explained deed
restrictions existed on certain parcels of land.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., referenced item #10 of the letter dated September 28, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering and read the following regarding suitable building envelope areas: “…have been labeled for each lot. However, we do not see line work representing the SBE…”. Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that Jeff Rider, P.E., had confirmed that the line work was on the plan. Jeff Rider, P.E., explained that because there was so much information on the plan they had separated some of the information. He noted that sheets 2 - 4 listed the location of the suitable building area. He also noted that the line work for the ISWMPs had been shown on the plan.
The Coordinator commented that the plans were very busy. Rodney Towne stated that he was concerned that Northpoint Engineering was having difficulty reviewing the plans and that the Coordinator had described the plans as busy and questioned how the individual developing the lot would view them. Jeff Rider, P.E., pointed out that sheets C-2 through C-4 were shown at 1”=100 and the ISWMPs were shown at 1”=50 which were much easier to read. The Coordinator stated that one of her comments from the general plan review was that the suitable building envelopes were hard to see. She continued that her review of the SWMPs did not include any comments about difficulty viewing the building envelopes because they were easy to identify. She suggested that the applicant request a waiver to showing the building
envelopes on the subdivision plan because they did appear on another sheet.
Mark Suennen questioned why the building envelopes could not be included on sheet B-1. Jeff Rider, P.E., answered that sheet B-1 was going to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. He explained that many Registrars preferred not to have extraneous information included on the plans that were being recorded.
The Chairman asked if the applicant intended on requesting a waiver as the Coordinator had suggested. Jeff Rider, P.E., answered yes.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., referenced item #13 of the letter dated September 28, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering and read the following: “A number of the proposed lots have limited margin of error for the installation of the wells to keep the 75 foot radius on the property it serves. The Planning Board may want to consider requiring that these wells be laid out by a Licensed Land Surveyor to avoid encumbering adjacent property”. He pointed out that the well locations shown on the plans were tentative locations only and final determination of lot improvements would depend on the builder and/or homeowner. He continued that it was the applicant’s opinion that there was sufficient local and State oversight to be sure that the wells, septic systems, and houses were properly located on the lots following the
regulations. He noted that twenty-nine of the forty proposed lots were required to and had SWMP provided with the application. He stated that if an ISWMP was not required at the time of the subdivision because the suitable building envelope of at least 0.5 acres was shown on the lots but there were critical areas on the lots a note would be added.
The Chairman asked for clarification of what Northpoint Engineering was requesting. Morgan Hollis, Esq., explained that Northpoint Engineering requested that a note be placed on the plan that would require the well radius to be laid out by a Licensed Land Surveyor. The Chairman commented that he liked Northpoint Engineering’s suggestion; he asked if the applicant was opposed to adding the note. Jeff Rider, P.E., stated that the applicant was concerned about an additional expense to the homeowner. Morgan Hollis, Esq., pointed out that the request was not required by the Town’s Subdivision Regulations.
Peter Hogan asked if all of the radii were located on their own property. Morgan Hollis, Esq., answered that some of the radii went into the open space and added that there was sufficient space on each lot. Rodney Towne commented that all of the lots had the ability to fit the 75’ radius within their own lot.
The Coordinator asked if revised Conservation Easement documents included the allowance for the radii to go into the open space because the former Declaration of Easements did not. Morgan Hollis, Esq., answered that the allowance for the overlapping radii into the open space was included in the new documents
Rodney Towne commented that it was the obligation of the homeowner and/or builder to ensure that the radii have stayed within their bounds. He continued that it was the Town’s responsibility to have the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer to review the bounds.
Shannon Silver, Planning Assistant, advised that a septic design was required prior to the issuance of a building permit and would show the well radius. She noted that DES requirements would also need to be met with regard to setbacks to septic.
Jeff Rider, P.E., pointed out that the plans showed potential locations for the septic and that future landowners may change the locations. He also pointed out a potential issue of someone else designing the system with a different house location and if the well location was staked prior to the septic design there was the possibility of installing the well in the wrong location. The Chairman stated that based on Jeff Rider, P.E.’s, reasoning he withdrew his original position of being in favor of requiring the note.
The consensus of the Board was not to require a Licensed Land Surveyor to lay out the wells as suggested by Northpoint Engineering.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., referenced item #14 of the letter dated September 28, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering and read the following: “The proposed well for Lot #19-44 is located in the rear of the lot and is nearly isolated by a wetland which is located in the center of the property. The proposed water service and electric lines between the well and the house will need to be installed without impacting the wetland. We suggest a note be added to the plans advising the future homeowner/builder of this fact”. Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that he had discussed this request with Jeff Rider, P.E., and they decided that placing the requested note on the plan was not an issue. The Chairman asked if the well location could be moved on the lot in question. Morgan Hollis, Esq., answered that he was unsure
that enough flexibility existed to move the well location on the lot in question.
The Coordinator stated that it was not clear that lot #44 met the Zoning Ordinance requirements for contiguous upland; she asked if the applicant had proven the lot. Jeff Rider, P.E., indicated that he would look into the matter.
Peter Hogan asked how the applicant proposed to dig a water line through a wetland. Jeff Rider, P.E., answered that the water line would not go through the wetland but around. Morgan Hollis, Esq., noted that if the Board preferred a note to be added saying that the well and electric lines would stay out of the wet they could add that note. The Board agreed it was a good idea.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., referenced item #16 of the letter dated September 28, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering and read the following: “The proposed well for Lot #19/19 is on the north side of the proposed Town owned closed drainage system. At our previous request you added note 4 on the cover sheet, which states private facilities including water services shall not be located within drainage easements. As currently designed the water service would need to cross the proposed drainage easements to serve the building site. With the existing wetland and proposed drainage improvements this lot has limited buildable area. The Planning Board should review this lot and determine if it is a viable lot. At the very least the well should be moved to the other side of the drainage easement”. Morgan Hollis,
Esq., commented that the applicant did believe the lot was viable and was willing to relocate the well to the other side of the drainage easement. The Coordinator stated that this issue was raised in her plan review and the Board should give some thought to the lots encumbered by drainage structures and easements, some of which were extensive. The Chairman reviewed the location of the lot in question.
The Chairman indicated that he would suspend discussion of item #16.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., referenced item #48 of the letter dated September 28, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering and read the following: “In the past the Highway Department has preferred a headwall within cul-de-sac islands rather than super elevation. This allows for gradual slopes towards the inlet and places the inlet away from the travel-way. We are awaiting input from the Town on this matter. (See comment 107.)”. Morgan Hollis, Esq., asked the Board for guidance on this matter on whether they preferred headwalls in cul-de-sac islands or super elevation. He stated that a letter from Jeff Rider, P.E., dated October 6, 2010, provided a detailed explanation on this matter. The Coordinator advised that the Board had not received a response from the memos sent to the interim Road Agents with regard to this
issue. The Chairman asked when the memos had been sent. The Coordinator answered that she had copied Kevin Leonard, P.E.’s, memo of September 24, 2010, on that date and recopied it in October 2010. Mark Suennen stated that he would be in favor of moving forward with whatever opinion the expert offered on this issue. Rodney Towne stated that he would determine who was responsible for responding to the requested information with an answer by the next meeting. The Chairman suggested that the applicant wait on updating the plans until an answer for item #16 and item #48 became available at the next meeting.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., indicated that he was awaiting a response from the Highway Department with regard to item #83 of the letter dated September 28, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering. The Chairman stated that the Board would have an answer on this matter at the next meeting.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., referenced item #91 of the letter dated September 28, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering with regard to driveway details. He read the following from a letter dated October 6, 2010, from Cuoco & Cormier, Inc.: “We are aware of the wording in Section 1X-B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations. However in reviewing the New Boston Driveway Regulations dated February 10, 2010, we found a conflict between the two. The Driveway Regulations indicate in Section 9.6, “The driveway shall have a 3% negative grade, from the edge of the traveled way to the center of the ditchline and no more than a 3% positive grade from the center of the ditchline back to the end of the apron so the driveway does not drain onto the road”. Since the Driveway Regulations are more detailed about the location,
details and construction requirements of driveways and driveway aprons we held our design to these standards. The conflict in the regulations is minor, but we would appreciate the Board’s determination of which standard to hold.”. Jeff Rider, P.E., asked if the Driveway Regulations or Subdivision Regulations should be followed for the driveway design. The Coordinator answered that Northpoint Engineering had suggested that the applicant refer to the Subdivision Regulations when dealing with fill section and refer to the Driveway Regulations when addressing cut sections.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., referenced item #94 of the letter dated September 28, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering and read the following: “Based on past experiences the Town has determined that it is a better practice to have specialized improvements associated with subdivisions be designed during the approval process rather than waiting till construction for the final engineering to be performed. With that said please engage a geotechnical/structural engineer to prepare the final design of the wetland crossing structures.” Morgan Hollis, Esq., read a response from a letter dated October 6, 2010, from Cuoco & Cormier, Inc.: “…we feel engaging geotechnical and structural engineers to provide full designs for these proposed culverts is premature at this time.”. Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that
the design process was typically costly and lengthy and would hold up the subdivision approvals. Jeff Rider, P.E., added that typically he liked to have assurances that the plan would be approved prior to hiring specialized engineering.
Mark Suennen stated that he would not have a problem with the applicant submitting a design proposal as long as it did not violate anything the Board had done in the past and provided sufficient design bonding and engineering.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator how the Board historically handled this issue. The Coordinator stated that this issue had come up with a previous subdivision that included a large retaining wall and culvert. She explained that the developer had had the manufacturer of the block system complete the design, noting that the manufacturer was located out of state. She further explained that because the manufacturer was located out of state, a P.E. from NH was needed to put their stamp on it which delayed the project. She stated that Northpoint Engineering had suggested that a requirement be made that retaining walls within a particular phase of construction be designed prior to the pre-construction meeting for that phase. She continued that the requirement would provide the developer the benefit of the
contractors’ input when proposing the wall system and any issues could be addressed prior to the construction. She stated that Northpoint Engineering had pointed out that that the wall specified geo-grid located in soil behind the wall this could become problematic when installed where there were also guardrail posts and without a final design to determine the lengths and depths of geo-grid it would be unclear whether there would be a conflict.
Jeff Rider, P.E., asked if the Board had received additional correspondence from Northpoint Engineering. The Coordinator advised that the Kevin Leonard, P.E., of Northpoint Engineering had dropped off a letter earlier in the day. She stated that the aforementioned matter could be discussed directly with Kevin Leonard, P.E., if the applicant chose to contact him. Jeff Rider, P.E., indicated that he had contacted the Northpoint Engineering office to schedule a meeting and had not received a response. The Coordinator commented that it did not sound right and it was not typical of Kevin Leonard, P.E., not to respond. The Chairman agreed and requested that the applicant contact Northpoint Engineering again and advise the Board if there was no response.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that item #94 could be left to Jeff Rider, P.E., and Kevin Leonard, P.E., to discuss.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., referenced item #95 of the letter dated September 28, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering and read the following: “The proposed phasing plan on sheet C-33 depicts Phase I to be a cul-de-sac off Susan Road. The occupancy of these lots should be contingent on Susan Road being constructed to the binder course of pavement through the existing Indian Falls Road cul-de-sac.”. Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that Kevin Leonard, P.E., also pointed out some corrections to be made to the phasing notes on sheet C-33. He noted that the applicant would correct the notes and it was not an issue. He asked the Board if they wanted the applicant to add a note to the plan that made Lorden Road contingent on Susan Road being constructed to the binder course. He stated that the cul-de-sac would
measure within the 1,000’ cul-de-sac maximum if it was measured from Susan Road.
The Chairman asked if a determination of this matter affected the plans. Morgan Hollis, Esq., answered that a note would need to be added to the plan if the Board went with Northpoint Engineering’s recommendation. The Chairman stated that the Board would address this matter at the next meeting. The Coordinator pointed out that the applicant was reminded of this matter at the September 28, 2010, meeting and it had been previously been discussed. The Chairman added that matter appeared to have been discussed and concluded and the plans should include a note requiring Susan Road to be to binder in order for lots on Lorden Road to achieve COs.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., referenced item #113 of the letter dated September 28, 2010, from Northpoint Engineering with regard to Traffic Impact Study and read the following: “…The Town should determine if the existing brush obstructing the sight distance at this location is within the right-of-way. If so, roadside improvements could be performed to correct this problem”. Morgan Hollis, Esq.’s, interpretation of item #113 was that there was a recommendation for the Town to determine whether or not brush existed in the right-of-way at the intersection of McCurdy and Bedford Roads and if so impose a condition of approval that the applicant clear the brush. He stated that if his interpretation was accurate the applicant did not have an issue with clearing the brush as a condition of approval.
The Chairman reopened the discussion of item #95 and read the following from the September 28, 2010, meeting minutes: “The Chairman stated that with regard to a road connection the applicant was subject to Susan and Indian Falls Road being constructed through binder and the usual safety items being installed in order to receive Certificates of Occupancy for this subdivision. He continued that the aforementioned note was placed on three other subdivisions that tied into this subdivision and as such a note should also be placed on the plans for this subdivision. Jeff Rider, P.E., agreed to add the note to the plan”. The Chairman noted that the matter had previously been addressed and resolved.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., thanked the Board for their input and noted that the 65 days statutory requirement for approval could be addressed at the next meeting. He asked if a request for an extension of the meeting needed to be submitted in writing. The Chairman advised that the extension could be done verbally at the meeting.
The Coordinator advised that the Conservation Commission was meeting with the PLC on October 18, 2010, to discuss the conservation easement. She asked if the applicant preferred for the Board to wait on submitting the conservation easement language to Town Counsel for review until after that meeting. Morgan Hollis, Esq., answered that it was fine to send the information to Town Counsel for review prior to the October 18, 2010, meeting.
The Coordinator advised that she was waiting to receive an amount for the offsite road improvements.
The Chairman stated that the Fire Wards had submitted a request that the Board require the installation of a 10,000 gallon cistern in addition to the sprinkler systems. He indicated that the Board would be considering the request. Mark Suennen asked if applicant had an opinion on the matter. Jeff Rider, P.E., answered that the applicant would prefer not to install a 10,000 gallon cistern. The Chairman stated that the matter would be discussed at the next meeting.
Morgan Hollis, Esq., asked the Coordinator if she recommended that he attend the October 18, 2010, meeting with the Conservation Commission and the PLC. The Coordinator stated that she would provide him with the Conservation Commission Chairman’s email address to discuss further.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the public hearing of
Frederick K. Lorden Revocable Trust (Owner), Harvey J. Dupuis Family Trust (Owner), S & R Holdings, LLC (Applicant),
Location: McCurdy & Susan Roads, Tax Map/Lot #12/19, 96 & 93-34,
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to October 26, 2010, at 7:00 p.m.
Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
TWIN BRIDGE LAND MANAGEMENT, LLC
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/26 Lots
Location: Twin Bridge Rd & West Lull Place
Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 & 3/5
MHP w/R-1 allowance & “R-A” District
Present in the audience was Brandy Mitroff. The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He stated that the application had been accepted as complete on March 23, 2010, and the deadline for Board action was May 27, 2010. He noted that there had been a series of adjournments and the applicant had requested another adjournment to October 26, 2010, in a letter dated October 6, 2010. He stated that the Board had received a letter copy fro m Mark Fougere, AICP, to Tom Carr, CWS, regarding the Fiscal Impact Report update.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the public hearing of Twin Bridge Land
Management, LLC, Location: Twin Bridge Road & West Lull Place,
Tax Map/Lot #2/62- 12 & 3/5, MHP w/R-1 allowance & “R-A” District,
to October 26, 2010, at 9:00 p.m.
Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
4. Discussion, re: RSA 674:39, “vesting” and existing previously approved subdivisions in New Boston.
The Chairman stated that the above-referenced matter would be discussed at the next meeting.
Mark Suennen asked what was the particular issue that needed to be addressed. The Coordinator answered that the Planning Office had come across a couple of subdivisions that were well outside of the four year vesting window without completing any improvements on the land. She indicated that the Board needed to discuss how to deal with this issue in the future.
Mark Suennen believed that when the Board had previously discussed this matter they had decided to set-up a vesting decision upon approval of the subdivision. The Coordinator pointed out that since the discussion no new subdivisions had been approved.
The Coordinator stated that one issue the Board needed to discuss was to determine what qualified as active and substantial improvements to the property for road frontage lots. Mark Suennen suggested that driveway aprons be required to meet the active and substantial improvement to the property. He noted that Goffstown required foundations. The Coordinator pointed out the Board had decided to deal with each subdivision on a case by case basis.
Rodney Towne asked if property was taken out of current use once the improvements began. The Coordinator answered yes. Rodney Towne commented that the removal of current use created situations where property owners avoided making any improvements.
Mark Suennen asked if a vesting had been done for the Trussell Subdivision. The Chairman answered no. Brandy Mitroff noted that extensive logging had taken place at this property and asked if the Board had placed any restrictions on the lots with regard to habitats. It was noted that they had not.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 9:52 p.m. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk
Minutes Approved:11/09/2010
| 
