Planning Board

NASHUA CITY PLANNING BOARD November 3, 2011 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Nashua City Planning Board was held on Thursday, November 3, 2011 at 7:00 PM in the auditorium at City Hall. Members Present: Ken Dufour, Chair William Slivinski, Vice Chair Thomas Ireland, Secretary Muriel Corcoran Adam Varley, Alt Mr. Dufour: We have some absences this evening so Mr. Varley will be participating and voting this evening. Also Present: Roger Houston, Planning Director Chris Sullivan, Planner II Approval of Minutes October 20, 2011 MOTION by Mr. Ireland to approve the minutes of October 20, 2011, waive the reading and place on file. SECONDED by Mrs. Corcoran MOTION CARRIED 3 to 0 (2 abstentions) COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Houston went over the following items that were received after the mailing went out: • Waivers for case #1 • Technical Review Meeting Sheet to determine regional impact • The November 17th meeting you have no cases, so the board may want to deal with that later in the meeting. REPORT OF CHAIR, COMMITTEE & LIASON None NCPB November 3, 2011 Page 2 OLD BUSINESS – CONDITIONAL/SPECIAL USE PERMITS None OLD BUSINESS – SUBDIVISION PLANS None OLD BUSINESS – SITE PLANS None NEW BUSINESS – CONDITIONAL/SPECIAL USE PERMITS None NEW BUSINESS SUBDIVISION PLANS 1. Veronica & Alun William (Owners) Jane Verbeck (Applicant) – Application and acceptance of proposed two lot subdivision. Property is located at 18 Middle Dunstable Road. Sheet B – Lot 628. Zoned “R18” Suburban Residence. Ward 8. MOTION by Mr. Ireland that the application is complete and the board is ready to take jurisdiction. SECONDED by Mr. Varley MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Don Duval, Duval Survey, Inc. Mr. Duval: This is a 2-lot subdivision. Right now the parcel has an existing house with a grandfathered in-law apartment. The proposal is to create one additional buildable lot. There is no sewer available in front of the parcel. We are proposing a sewer extension. The existing house is connected to city sewer. The existing house has a well and we are proposing a well for the new house. Mr. Dufour: I see a waiver request for the sidewalk. Mr. Duval: We are proposing a contribution in the amount of $5,000.00. There are no sidewalks in the immediate area. Mr. Dufour: The sewer extension, was that a request of DPW or good practice? NCPB November 3, 2011 Page 3 Mr. Duval: It was the only way the lot could be developed. We could not put in a septic system according to your regulations. Mr. Dufour: Are we in line with at sidewalk contribution? Mr. Sullivan: It is suppose to be $9,740 for one frontage. It is suppose to be $20,000 for both lots. Mr. Dufour: Is this an amount picked at random by the applicant? Mr. Sullivan: Yes that was picked by the applicant. Mr. Dufour: The last subdivision we had in here, just like this where they made one lot into two, we made them pay the going rate for the frontage of both lots. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH CONCERN Kevin Nadeau, 22 Middle Dunstable Road Mr. Nadeau: What is the frontage required for a lot on this road? Mr. Dufour: The minimum lot frontage is 100 feet. Minimum lot area is 18,000 feet. This lot has at least that. Mr. Sullivan: It is 194 feet. Mr. Dufour: It is 194.79 feet is the frontage on this new lot. Stephanie Moody, 21 Middle Dunstable Road Ms. Moody: I have several concerns. My house currently gets a lot of runoff from that lot. It washes out our top driveway. I am concerned that building another house will wash out the bottom driveway we have. I have concerns about the sewer line. Is that sewer line being extended from the current house or extended from across the street? Mr. Sullivan: The sewer line will be extended from the existing sewer line in the street, not from the house. Ms. Moody: I have concerns about adding a second driveway. The existing driveway is a semi circle that has two entrances. If they add a second driveway, that is a steep hill on a curve. We already have issues when people back out of their driveways. Will this subdivision make the lot sizes significantly smaller then the ones currently in the neighborhood it would drive the property values down? NCPB November 3, 2011 Page 4 Mr. Dufour: From the map I am looking at, I don’t see the dimensions of the other lots, however, the lots sizes they are proposing is allowed in that district. The minimum lot size is 18,000 square feet with a 100’ of frontage. They have almost 200 feet of frontage. Even subdivided, the new lot has over 31,000 square feet and the old lot has 36,000. Ms. Moody: The most important thing I am concerned about is the water table. My house works off of a well. It is a deep well and we don’t draw much water from it. Adding another well into that mixture could be a problem. Mr. Dufour: There is an existing driveway, but in order to access the new lot from that existing driveway, they would have to have a 400’ driveway, a common driveway to get to it. Can you talk to me about the runoff? Ms. Moody: Number 18 is up on a hill. When it rains or snows the runoff comes across the street into our front yard and driveway. We currently have a large ditch and water collects in that ditch at the front of our driveway. If another house is built we would get the same problem in our second driveway. SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN No one Mr. Dufour: Is there anybody on the applicant’s side that wishes to address the sidewalk contribution? Mr. Duval: With respect to the driveway. There is an existing circular driveway. The intent is to use the same exit point for the new lot. The plan is not to create a new driveway entrance. We will be removing a portion of the existing driveway. You will have two separate driveways. With respect to the contribution, I asked the client what they wanted to contribute. The cost is $50 a foot. Since there are no sidewalks anywhere, if the minimum frontage is 100 feet, $50 x 100 feet comes out to $5,000. That was the rationale. Mr. Dufour: But the frontage is 194’ on the new lot. Mr. Duval: The existing lot will have over 200’ of frontage. Mr. Dufour: What about the runoff issue? What will you be doing to your site to keep the water on the site as opposed to what runs off? NCPB November 3, 2011 Page 5 Mr. Duval: I don’t have the plans with me, but the engineer has drawn up an underground storage for the roof and foundation drains. We show a 25 foot no cut buffer to ensure that there will always be vegetation there. Any increase in runoff we are handling on site with a series of underground chambers. Mr. Dufour: You are showing the no cut buffer on the plan. That is the plan we are going to approve if we approve it. If that gets cuts, even 5 years from now, you are in violation of the plan. What about the issue about the possibility of drilling for the well and it impacting the well across the street? Mr. Duval: I am not qualified to render an opinion on that. As far as the soils go, we have not done any test pits. I looked on the SCS soil map and it is classified as a well drained soil with deep seasonal high water. I don’t see ground water as being a problem. Mr. Dufour: This concludes the public hearing on this application. We will now carry the deliberations into our public meeting. The Board reserves the right to recall any party to this case for clarification. Mr. Dufour: The first waiver is for the sidewalk contribution. Mr. Ireland: I think it would be inconsistent to go with a different standard. Mr. Dufour: The last time it was done here we had the developer pay the whole frontage and I found it inconsistent. The practice has at least been on this board that they pay the going rate for the new lot, which is twice what they are proposing. Mr. Varley: I would agree it is to be consistent. If it is typically the case that it would be the frontage for the new lot it seems that would be the appropriate standard. Mr. Dufour: That would be the appropriate minimal standard. Mr. Slivinski: In my recollection we haven’t been consistent all times, but more times then not, we have required a sidewalk contribution or built across both the existing lot and the new lot. We have given some exemptions once in a while. In this case I would vote for a $20,000 contribution to cover both lots. If they would prefer to put in a sidewalk, so be it that is their right. Mr. Ireland: Regarding the water table and impacts, it appears we don’t have the opinion from an expert to determine whether that makes a difference to the adjacent neighbors. NCPB November 3, 2011 Page 6 Mr. Dufour: We heard there is runoff now. My first thought was as soon as you create the driveway you might be altering the way the water is flowing. The surveyor points out the curb cut is already there and they are putting a 20 foot buffer. Mr. Ireland: I was talking more in terms of drilling of the new well. Mr. Dufour: I see a lot of residential construction. They put wells up and down the street. The chances of them hitting the same vein is almost remote. But don’t make your decision on that. If you feel we need more information then let’s table this to the next meeting. Ms. Corcoran: I don’t think we have enough information to go forward. Mr. Dufour: If we make them come back, we should let it be known what we expect to hear from them the next time they are here. Maybe they can rethink the sidewalk contribution. We have the well. Does one well impact another across the street? MOTION by Mr. Ireland to table New Business – Subdivision Plan #1 to the next meeting for the purpose of addressing the following issues: 1. An expert opinion on any effects on the water table for drilling a well on that site. 2. The existing driveway will stay there and existing runoff will be reduced or maintained based on the new drainage systems and no cut buffer. 3. Full frontage of sidewalk contribution in lieu of building sidewalk. SECONDED by Ms. Corcoran MOTION CARRIED 4 to 1 NEW BUSINESS – SITE PLANS None OTHER BUSINESS 1. Review of tentative agenda to determine proposals of regional impact. NCPB November 3, 2011 Page 7 MOTION by Mr. Slivinski that there are no issues of regional impact. SECONDED by Ms. Corcoran MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY DISCUSSION ITEM Mr. Dufour: Alderman Larose is not here this evening. He has been our aldermanic rep. He is no longer an alderman and we wish him the best of luck. Mr. Houston: Before the people leave, you will be tabling the case to your next meeting. That would be November 17th and that would be the only thing on the agenda. Mr. Dufour: Then it will be the next meeting. Mr. Houston: That will be December 8th. If you want to come back, you won’t be getting another notice. MOTION by Mr. Dufour to cancel our next meeting on November 17, 2011 and have our next regularly scheduled meeting be on December 8, 2011. SECONDED by Ms. Corcoran MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY MOTION to adjourn by Mr. Ireland at 7:46 pm. APPROVED: ______________________________________________________ Ken Dufour, Chair, Nashua Planning Board DIGITAL RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR LISTENING DURING REGULAR OFFICE HOURS OR CAN BE ACCESSED ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE. DIGITAL COPY OF AUDIO OF THE MEETING MAY BE MADE AVAILABLE UPON 48 HOURS ADVANCED NOTICE AND PAYMENT OF THE FEE. ______________________________________________________ Prepared by: Linda Panny Taped Meeting