Planning Board - Regular Meeting

so just it ising it all right speaking out for attendance okay I'm gonna bring a me to order I'm Don Barby 135 Road Adam sandal 9ed Drive J Duke ground Hill Road Ben Davis nine Wheeler Road Jonathan patr o what are your Drive Sandy Crystal one Shore View Drive Kim M Daniel slbo rep Ginger IR recording secretary um so tonight um Ben I am going to have you vote as so we get the mod number everybody's voting um tonight Carri is graci Le came in and rather under the weather to get us started and now we're going to be on our own um all right we're going to move right into uh public hearings uh first one's the amendments to zoning ordinance on Town Warden warrant uh B to amend section 10.01 D to add sections numbering and clarifying language regarding storm water management facilities and also to amend section 10.01 e to allow maintenance of improved storm water management

facilities without requiring a wetland protection conditional use permit um usually car's presenting this uh which we did talk about this in the last meeting um we had few changes that we had put in here um which would really I think just the um making maintenance not applicable in couple does anybody on the board have any yeah it was just defining what um the sedimentation sedimentation and detention facilities which is a storm water yeah numbered oh yeah we numbered them numbering so it's kind of more clear yeah to read and then um yeah modifying the table looks good to me anybody else on the board have any comments I will open to the public if anybody came to talk about the changes not seeing any I'll close the public hearing I would make a motion to add uh that Amendment to the town warrant a second all those in favor opposed there we go that one is done okay D to replace article 16 impact fee ordinance and methodology reports in its entirety this amendment would impact a new school impact fee assessed on new residential development um part of why we came to a second one is um Carri talk to legal

councel to make sure that we head it right and we got the legal councils plus and um know if we got any others that was it that was it just making sure that the lawyers say Okay um which just brings impact fee to new residential development um to help pay off the bond for the repairs the addition for the El school there public heing I'll open to the public anybody has any comments questions seeing none I will close a public hearing Mo I'll make a motion to add um that to the town warrant technical term I'll second all those in favor I iose then that's made it to the warrant all right moving along application 21-24 jica Properties LLC continued from 1219 12924 site plan application for three contractor Bay buildings of 22,000 ft 18,000 ft and 9600 squ Fe respectively and Associated parking storm water management and utilities infrastructure located at 1372 Route 3A um so it looks like they they want us to Contin request to continue yes it looks like they did come back with a plan that they're not going to have any Wetland buffer impacts more

with a new plan so we need to I mean take a look at this the Bond cost here I still am confused over why they're roing Rock growing GRS on well I think the idea is to restore what's there if something happen like they talk about the worst you know situation if somebody left it what the cost would be to to L and that so this assumes that they would I mean we wouldn't want them to put LOM like over rock or certainly like a cliff if they have a vertical face no no no you know like I mean I guess guess the whatever if there was I think it would be to stabilize you know cuz that's putting that's looming and seeding the whole site yeah the whole site where it so is that that's actually the lot Dimensions versus what their Disturbed area dimensions are I would guess that that would be the case given given the yeah even the volumes that are in there I I would agree that we need to re review that but I think that may be part of the discussion when we when they come back in so I mean I would say that it's it's sufficient it's a sufficient number but it's the good question is is it too high is it accounting for you don't know at what point in the project it could come if it came to a halt so they may have removed that rock that was once rock yeah yeah I mean I guess they clear all the trees and that's it and then you got to yeah then you got to it did almost cut scenario cut in half original one which is wild but which they did request

continuous yes they did I just we did want to um they did lose like three Bays told me and and will no longer have any buffer impacts I'll make a motion to continue application 21-24 to the February 20th meeting I'll second all in favor I opposed All Right Moving On application 21224 Keller products in continued from 12924 site plan application to continue and expand the ongoing experation of the property in accordance with RS a 155e located at 9 Gordon Road I think at the same time we're going to talk about application 41-24 K prodcts Inc conditional use permit application to continue and expand the ongoing excavation of the property in accordance with RSA 155e located at 9 Jordon Ro oh um my name is Tim Bernie to almost messed that up uh working with the applicant uh on this I don't know if you remember three years ago this is down off Gordon Road that's actually noise road is a little Spur off Gordon Road it's probably 100 feet long um and the property's accessed off the end of noise road which is down here through a through a private access that comes into the property um it's um a little over 21 Acres of shy of 22 Acres of property it's had mixed jues it's down a big Industrial Area it's it's been over the last 50 years it's been

mined and and used for industrial purposes different types it used to be a large steel building on here I don't know what they did um that's been removed on the buting property same owner um but it's had a lot of PL use so it's in the middle of an industrial area the whole site's been stripped there's no top soil left on it it hasn't been for decades um but three years ago we came in we got a permit um for 2 acre mining um local Builder Jeet Knight um was looking for material locally uh for Housing Development so we came in and we got a permit for that um and um the threeyear the permit was for three years so at the end of the three years we required to come back and and renew the permit um they're very close they have about 6 fet left in depth but they can go out a lot of material so we kind of looked at it and said well there's not even enough material left at the value of the material it's kind of silty material it's fine for for um for fill material for Sandy fill material but it couldn't be used for concrete or or septic system or anything like that so it's not a very valuable material um biggest Advantage is that right now it's a huge it's a huge pile of dirt that really prevents the lot from being developed it's in the industrial zone so it's got would have to get moved at some point anyway so the land owner looking at it the Keller properties as well we'll either have to pay somebody to move it when we go to develop the property or um we can do it this way so we looked at it and uh decided that the only way to pay for all of this was to just go ahead and get a permit to mine the all of the material that is is in this Hillside uh in in this pile here so um we went ahead and and been grading plans to to remove that

material um now that we're over two acres we need an aot permit so that's um that'll probably be submitted this week um a lot of things kind of came up uh with that but um got through through all that so um the application before tonight is not just to uh to renew the permit for the existing excavation which has been taking place for the last 3 years but to expand it to Encompass the property or not all of it but a portion of it um you know probably half of it is a hell this this piece I think it's 8 AC so um that's proposal is all s uh there's no runoff from the site so pursuing to aot regulations um we asked for a waiver for Professional Engineers certification because there's no runoff that leaves the site uh so it's not required by DS R we're asking for that from you guys as well your regulations have gone through a change so three years ago this was a special exception so the permit that we received three years ago to do the the the mining uh was an special exception since that time the um the has moved the has made the planning board the regulatory Authority for Earth excavations um so the zoning board is off the hook I'm sure's very disappointed about that um um so so I don't know you guys are familiar but uh um the regulatory Authority that's granted the planning board is 155e so um everything that we did is in compliance with that that's that's the guidelines it's it's kind of like um the site plan statute so gravel pits don't fall under the site plan statute so the

legislature created 155e to regulate uh s pits so uh everything we did isn't 100% comping for 155e uh but you really should adopt that regulations when you don't have anything else to do so um but that's it be happy to answer any questions we can go through so essentially the way that that you guys have created this you you made it a conditional use permit um so a gravel operation requires a conditional use permit that's how you you youve done and within the conditional use permit standards it says that um the Smit of sight planine application with the conditional use permit but it really should be an earth exavation permit but we'll go that's how you how you guys have it set up now so so that's what we did um there's some criteria it's not the criteria you have in your conditional use permit is not 155e but it's this group of criteria that you guys created so we went through and just to make sure that that um we met those criteria and I'd be happy to go through them with you as well we wanted BRS to go there the whole way through yeah I'll make a motion to accept application 41-24 and um application 22-24 is complete second it fair we got your application step down um do Regional impact sure I'll do that later on our yellow sheet but if you want to do that four we're not there

yet yeah does the board have any questions on this I have a couple of questions um so one of the comments that we got from um Town staff is on the restoration Bond that's on file um $5,000 um what does that hover is that looming and seeding the slopes yep so and then my other my other question was on the swes that you got that are showing on the plant yep the benches yeah um not clear where those are going some of them they seem like they're really not very deep so those are right out of aot so aot requires benches now um since 2010 so um that's actually a detail oh so it's just it's not it's not they're not well they are kind of swes though because they are sort of they want they don't they don't want the so aot didn't want the water going down really large um slopes so if you had water we actually have more of them than required because there isn't any wed so there isn't a watered this is the top of the hill right here and this is this is odle's site which is excavated so there isn't a watershed coming onto this so we need take that into account when we created these so we don't need this many but what they what this is sand so what aot was concerned about why they create this is if there's water coming onto the site and you have these really steep slopes that are sand and you have water coming over them every 20 feet a

vertical change they wanted you to intercept that storm water and and bring it over so that it can't start getting velocity and energy and start to erode the slope so they have us now this is a relatively new 2010 put these and this also comes in with construction too it it aot it applies to anything so if you had a a development that had a really big cut and they had a really steep slope like this um that have to put benches in but you don't really see them anywhere but in gravel pits and sand pits so um but the flows are really low and we don't have any water coming on the site at all from offsite so the flows are essentially what falls on this on this is going to end up in that swell and it's really never going to make it to the end because it's all sand but it's not it's not running down the face of the slope for 60 feet it's it's getting intercepted and brought over on a on on a 1% um Pitch so it's pretty Miner if we if we did have runoff we if we did have runoff coming onto the site that was a significant cue then then I think we I I would agree with with Adam we need to worry about where this where this ends but the water's never going to make it to the end because because so the Sand's just going to take it off so what is the what does the final detail there look like it's going to be a vegetated slope and what is the Swale grass s grass it's 1% aot is this is in front of aot yeah is there a plan for after when the excavation is all complete so so essentially we're we're taking so you can kind of see from these Contours is that the current the current steep slope

runs right through the middle of this lot yes so we're taking that steep SL slope that runs right through this middle of the lot and move it back um Keller um also owns this parcel there used to be an an industrial business on this one that's been removed it's now bacon um so right now I think they're just they all they actually own a business on this property you can see this building here yeah so um that's where their business is and I I think right now they're just you know they waiting to see what happens and they don't need to sell it so they're hanging on to it for maybe their expansion or future it's a big bing area right now yeah that's surrounded by commercial yeah I know if there was plans no there isn't any right today there aren't any so how big is the slope there um it goes from 280 to 3302 just test I mean area wise of the slope yeah oh I didn't um the area is oh this whole thing so it's 100,000 square feet for everything right that has to be restored oh oh the so the total acre acre being Ser me for the if you were thinking about a bond um and it gets uh I think it's eight Acres total area I mean right now the 21 Acres it's starting to grow in with some shrubs and stuff but you know you know what it looks like down there but we're going anything we disturb the slops are all going to be Lans and SE anything that we disturb get something growing there we'll get something growing there so um so what's I guess what's the area that has to be loaned and seated of that 8 Acres um

so yeah I mean if you're looking $5,000 is probably not we are GNA we are going to phase it for current use so here wanted to talk to you too um about about this as well but so the sand obviously is not hugely valuable um in the current youth this is industrial land um so the current pretty high the land the Sand's really in the ground the sand value um after everybody get paid you know the profits like 65 cents for a yard it's like it's nothing so um we're going to just do a two acre I think four acres um is the first phase so we only have to take out four acres from current use because the penalty is so high you know if you pay $10,000 um for your current youth penalty and you're making 65 cents a yard on the sand um it's a lot of just to cover your current use penalty so um um we're going to going to try it that way it's still going to end up taking the whole thing out of current use the penalty will still be the same but you won't have to pay it all on day one um because you you don't get any so you can't you can't take you can't take two acres out of current use and then swap two acres so you can't say well I'm going to put this two acres back in current use and take this two acres out they go well so here's your current use for your two acres they don't let you you can't swap it so um ultimately the full current use penalty will get paid just we're trying to find a way not to pay all of every want and how long how long do you think You' be mining this out uh it took three years to do that so if just based on the volume materials at the at the rate that they're going about 20

years that's if the uh if the allows it I have an agreement I think that will go for another uh four years and I don't take that much out you know if it was if it was concrete sand or something in a minute but it's not it's not good for that pretty salty you're beautiful minding your phone over there are you suggesting we should increase the I'm just using GA using Gail's numbers here here the for 8 Acres of restoring that me 4 in of top soil would be my numbers are right uh $220,000 we can withdraw our application at 65 cents a yard per s yeah so um the $5,000 bond is not much no no um yeah 220,000 I think would be a little little steep just a little um yeah so one way to to minimize that is try to do um we can do five acres at a time we won't have more than five acres open so therefore you don't can even have that amount open yeah really you know looking at the current use in Phase One we're only going to have about 2 and a half acres open in Phase so with the where you as you you you know get back into this are you at the top where where some of it you're going to get will start getting some of it planted as you work your way down or right so that's that's always the yes so um and that's everybody handles this differently as far as municipalities and how they regulate

just because of the the the um the cost of bond somebody was to disturb an entire 8 acres and then have to restore it so um you could say um put the condition on that we'll um have three acres open at a time and as so as we as as as they get um three acres done essentially what happens is the way it actually works out in the Min I do a lot of these I do a lot of mining projects um in new hire and Massachusetts but um so what would happen is is as they get one end of the three acres done they'll close like an acre and they'll move this way so they'll always have three acres open but as a an acre of it keeps getting closed behind them so um you can put that stipulation on and that's how you get the bond that's how the municipalities typically get the bond amount into something reasonable um and then um and control make sure it doesn't get crazy and have this whole eight Acres wide open with steep slopes and nothing stabilized um and I want to talk to you about the three years so you guys review this every three years under your current current regulations um that's that's a little bit problematic and we're kind of hoping that we can get you to change that to five years um and the reason for that is the aot so for new pits if you have a grandfather pit or a pit that was permitted prior to like 19 1999 um this isn't true but for anything permitted after 1999 that has an aot permit you have to do an update to aot every five years that's that is an existing add condition survey of the of the entire um

quy of mining operation um and submitted to the do showing that you're in compliance with your permit so it's very expensive between1 and $220,000 to do that um you guys have it in your regulations to do it every 3 years so you can kind of see the problem is in three years we do it for you and then two years later we have to do it for do for aot then a year later you're going to be back one year later we got to do it again for you guys and then four years from then we do it again for you guys and then 10 years we do it for aot so essentially you're doing this you know like every other year so um and this happened in bosin with the quaries that we had there and the town did agree to to change that to to match aot so that it it was the same so that the the the land owners the The Operators aren't paying for this continuously um every year but that's how you would regulate um if you did put that stipulation on it I think just fine with that that we don't open more than three acres at a time um it maybe we can get the bond to something a little more the board's more comfortable with and then then we'll check that every every five years you're going to get a you know to know okay what's closed what's what's and what's open and and making sure that the operators are doing what they're supposed to be doing and we can make that put notes and areas on the plan we know where we're going to be where the first three acres are so in the direction we're going to be are we going to want Gail to do an analysis of the bond I don't think so I mean it is I mean this has been a pit for yeah 25 years it's been pretty open it's in the middle of commercial area um and it is all sand there isn't there's there's no

water running through it there's no you know so and and there's no top slay vegetation on this side now so anything we do is going to be an improvement but we are making the slope steeper so we do need to yeah to restore it to what it is now is to sleeve in sand okay um you know I do like the idea of having that 3 Acre you know the smaller area to where where you have to as you finish to spot it you'll start yeah and that fit covering and growing in there yeah and that fits perfectly with what we're hoping to do with the current use PTY is sticking it to I think we start out with 4 Acres just because we also have to include the driveway to get there and a few other things but it it that's what we're going to have over and hopefully it's you know that's going to probably last for four years anybody else getting doing the calculations for that three acres well he's calculating I'm going to open this to the public if anybody P comments need to take I have that we take out calculator away um seeing no comment I'll close the public hearing and then we're back to the Lord what you what' you come up with over there Adam three acres we' be using Gail's numbers if you believe their numbers are right would be 825 so with that you know part of you know when you're restoring it to what it was it definitely wouldn't be 4 Ines

a you know because you know I'm not part of how when you say restoration of bringing it back to where it was usually things are vegetated when you started right but I think the idea is also to create something that's stable yeah not just you know if it's a bomb outside they they just want to make sure it's it's stable so aot is going to ask you for a closure plan like what do that going look like top soil and yeah A1 is it 85% vegetated green 85% vegetated be considered closed so on you you came over what like 80 grand it's also kind of an incentive to a bond of viously don't want to call the bond but you wanted the bond to be high enough to be an incentive to the person to do the work you really want them to do the work yes yeah we we don't want to ever pull a bond that's no thing so you know it could it doesn't maybe 82 I think what you're thinking is maybe $882,000 and I kind of agreed is too much of an incentive maybe we can get some and $5,000 isn't enough so maybe we can get somewhere in between somewhere around 10 10 would be good I was thinking 50 I me we good it's a cash Bond too so um yeah the cash bond is pretty good incentive that's not just 2% of the cost of the bond what what was the original property area it was 5,000 before so the originally is two acres two acres so that's what I'm

thinking but where you take take 5,000 * 4 20,000 the [Music] 20,000 but yeah you guys have to be comfortable with it because you're so yeah I mean it still gives you some some good and he didn't fall out of his chair son I did with the first number when you start at $220,000 being sales out that's how my wife tells me about the credit card bill say it's really oh no really it's only half that hard okay so the discuss the conditions yes so the conditions I have is that we um one second hold on I'll just start listing and go so addressing the missing checklist items um receipt of other permits the cup and aot although we're doing the cup at the same time um let's come back to the restoration Bond number uh only three acres open at a time um professional stamps and signatures oh you wanted a waiver on that Tim yeah just for the professional engineer or at because there's no run off from the S um all waivers granted and conditions approved and then the bond that's the last remaining one I've heard 20 I've heard 20 I've heard 50 I've heard 80 I've heard 220 I've got I've got um the change to match from the threeyear to the five year to match the aot would be the other adjustment can we also make a note just Ginger to consider

that for the next disc zoning stuff yeah it's something that we need to visit yeah no we care usually yeah I don't know if can we make that change yeah that's I'm Wonder to use that yeah it's not going to make it this year yeah it's not a condition this is something we just deal with in the future the three to five years not on this specific one the the checklist items did you read all three and know you read the state approvals but I think there's also the maximum distance between monuments that too and also at least two ties the state grid coordinates with elevation could they could they request a waiver they request a waiver on The Monuments on the time period That's what I was saying like why why wouldn't they be able to ask for a waiver from 3 year to 5 year even though we haven't made the change I get that that but well where is the five where is the three years written it's in the condition use permit now so where it used to be in zoning but it was taken out of zoning and it's not in the current zoning so I think in the it's got to be know if it's in there because the reason why we're here is because under our previous approval through the old ordinance so I'm not I don't said now it's regulated under the conditional use permit and that's a question for but yeah I mean obviously I think you it's

still in there for three years yeah it's under 7 58 of the zoning 7 .16 screening standard is the number uh 7.16 a uh let me just make sure that that's the rate no it's a different it's a different regulation 7.14 is Earth excavations screening standards are for visual barriers I'm not seeing it in here I'm not seeing any note in there here 7148 like just one it's one yeah so do we have time Li in there well that's what like if there's not one under article 12 yeah it doesn't say um there's nothing that I'm find it in there now maybe it was in there when they submitted it previously but I actually have a copy of the 2020 zoning ordinance which was completely gutted and removed for section 7.14 so in 2020 um there was a section three of the earth excavation regulations that says duration of permit and that's where the three years came from and we were subject to that so anybody that was approved whose pit was approved under the 2020 zoning ordinance would their per the duration of their permit was three

years in there but that was taken out and replaced with 7.14 which just which and refers to article 12 um I refers to article 12 um and sight and sight plan approval but also transfers the regulatory authority to the plan 14 section 14 that's where I was going to next there's a well there's a 14.05 duration of permits and approvals buing yeah Special exceptions it says with exception of approvals for excavation yeah that's where you got moved to and it's five years for which the planning board May specify a date upon which the expiration expires not to exceed two years first to section 7.14 in RSA conditionally use permits issued by the planning board for special exceptions and variances issued by the Zone Board of adjusments shall automatically expire two years after the date the approval at that time but if you read if you go back up to the top of that with the exception of approvals for exavation which are granted for a duration of three to five years pursuant to article 7 7.1 so we to say we granted for five years wait where did you where did you read that uh that same it's B special exceptions variances conditional use permits the first sentence where does it your yours says three to five you is that the the current version this it had we had had the older 21 yeah see that's it's 24 that's this

one it's not there so they took that out they struck that out too with the exception of approvals for excavation for which the planning board May specify a date upon which the EXP expires but says not to exceed 2 years that's a site plan regul no it's in the zoning in um 14.05 B this whole thing 14.05 is duration of per so they would ask for a waiver from that not if it's in the zoning or yeah if it's in the zoning or you can't you can't ask for waiver that the only thing is we could look at that and maybe next year change it review it come back for an amendment to a previously approved I wonder why they got taken out though if especially if it's if aot is five and we had it as three to five previously just seems odd yeah can you have a condition use that they get the approval the variance from the zoning board no oh Oh you mean oh for frame yeah yeah like we approve it here then they with the condition they get the approval from the zoning board then they can go to the zoning board get the approval versus going to the zoning board then coming back here yeah in two years we're not going to even have two acres excavated so can we get reduce the bond I I don't know how that works yeah

there's no way we're going to even put it two years somehow you have to figure this out because I'm the first one coming and ay's coming and Weaver's coming and all their other coming yeah we have to work on that but think we want all the people coming in every two years to tell us wher they are on their Gravel Pit excavations yeah no think that's in 10 yeah sounds like the duration thing was tried to catch special exceptions and variances and just sort of rolled in conditional use permits which is kind of odd because the zoning ordance deals with special exceptions and variances but the planning board does conditioning use permit so why does the duration do all three planning board control the duration of a conditional use permit now the other thing it says and the I think we okay me specify date not to exceed two years and it says conditional use permits issued by the planting Board of special exceptions this might be separate says automatically expire 2 years after the date of approval if at that time the conditions approval have not been met any related the the one two and three but I don't know whether it pertains to excavation it it's funny that that whole paragraph is one sentence yeah you know what it sounds like you know what there sounds like they're talking about is conditions of approval like uh if you have conditions of approval and they're not the conditions are not met in two years right conditions of approval expire not the conditional use right and it says or if any related State a local permit is outstanding or or the action authorized by the land use board has not commenced yeah so

um I mean now that I'm reviewing the correct version that in parenthesis for which the planning board May specify a date upon the expiration expires like I don't I don't know why that is in there like that's what we shouldn't do with Carri right should we put aside the changing of the the duration and you can just deal with the later is yeah so if you guys um so what could we do um I mean the board definitely seems pretty open for the five years yeah yeah so um we can I mean the board can can grant the permit to excavate um it's in the zoning ordinance so you don't even have to specify it it's already specified and we could then ask Carrie and code for a clarification and then we can go if they decide that that is what it means and that's what it says then we can go to the zoning board um and and the zoning board can actually determine that that's not what it means or they can give us relief and then next year you can change that so only understand anything thing is the deciding as a board on the bond number I'm buying with 20 grand yeah is everyone else seems a little low but what's the justification for 20 grand again it's only three acres open at a time and it's four time if they had two acres before now it's eight and it was a five grand bomb so we just just times it by four that was very scientific and the permit's only good for two

years and I and I think part of it too is where it is what the condition of sand it's not you know it's not going to have the running water and yeah I I do think the 80 is too high I agree that their numbers we use their numbers that that number is too high but I I me I if we went back to that other calculation I would challenge that like I will challenge that at the next because I don't I think those numbers are high in the engineering calculation that Loman seed like that that seems like astronomical numbers asking to Bonds on so and I I think you know $220,000 is to make him want to do it and the excavation contractors are contractors so the bond would be like if if I had to hire a contractor to come in and restore my pit then but they're the contractor so I I think it's going to be and I mean the other the other thing is is they're gonna have to follow aot just going to ask that's like to me I think that's the difference on this is we do public hearing yeah we did did I'll make a motion this does not have a regional impact I'll second all those in favor I I make a motion to Grant waivers for section 502m and 502m as requested do they need a waiver for the distance

between monuments yeah yeah you can we didn't realize and I'll and I'll amend it to n 502t this yeah the I'll second all right so second all those in favor I I post and we've done conditions of approval unless people want to add any do we where's the restoration Bond condition we said 20 oh okay okay all right I so just I'll restate them so the conditions of approval are addressing the missing now there's two missing checklist items the receipt of other permits including the cup and aot um running a restoration Bond of $20,000 um rational stamps and signatures on the final plan labers have been granted um and the other condition is only 3 acres of the lot open at any time those are the ones we've discussed I'll second that motion all those in favor oppos so I I'll make a motion to approve application is this were you second what were you seconding the conditional approval no there's a list of conditions oh I think okay so um I'll make a motion to approve application 22-24 Keller products and application

41-24 color products I'll second that all those in favor in the finding of facts or that it's you know appropriate use for the site um and that's about it so I never know what to say on that industrial area area it's been a sand p and they meet The Zing ordinance section yeah and and we discuss the bond which you feel good all right happy day thank you oh all right now we're going to really move on sun yeah on to application 42-24 Stephanie re Wetland conditional youth permit for approximately 9,890 sare ft of wetland impact is 256 Square ft of wetland buffer impact for construction of a driveway located off Len's drive so I'm Greg Reed five Levens Drive uh my wife Stephanie is the owner of the properties representing her

anything we're in Wexler been environmental consultants Washington the Hampshire here representing the reads um don't recall how many copies I gave out but does anybody need uh color 11 by 17 of the uh of the plane I got we got black and white you got them room yes y all right um so than very mention there an application for a driveway um what this was a subdivision that was approved fact in uh fall years's October of 2023 and um created this 10.2 acre L at the end of Le Drive um it's currently undeveloped and uh the only access is from Leven Drive there's no other no other points of Entry here so um we have about 100 ft of Frontage on the road all of which is bordered by Wetland um so we are proposing a

driveway so from drive to the up of the property um well what we're proposing is it come straight off the side above drive here and straight across um we went through I think seven or eight different ation of this design um dag ring down here which is what um the reads and uh Mr gby had recommended when I spoke with them initially on site um I I know it looks like it's less impact because there's a little island that you hit in the middle but it it really isn't um it's it's actually slightly more impact than what we're proposing um our we adjusted our grades on the driveway uh GL Drive is substantially higher than the rest of the property so um we come in pretty high then drop down to Max to grades um we maintain you know a high enough uh raid over the pipes to have enough cover for them um but you know we're looking at a total Crossing length of about 306 feet um we are again as you mentioned at the beginning um 256 square feet of impact to the buffers um 9,890 square fet of impact to uh Wetlands we do have a um application into Dees for a standard Dron fill

application um it hasn't been reviewed yet um actually submitted it back in December November somewhere in that range but um I ended up having some things going on and meetings in in December so I requested need run the agenda for this month I requested an extension um from Dees to allow the Conservation Commission an additional time to review the application and provide comments to the state um that he'll be suffered for me not being able to come to meeting so um we have two drain structures proposed in this Crossing uh the first one we're crossing this unnamed inent stream and what we've proposed here is a concrete box C 20 ft long 5 ft wide 3 feet high um the second Crossing is an 18inch dual ball um hdp pipe 20 ft long um both of these Crossings have been designed um by Anthony Costello PE and the drainage calculations he provided um show that these both pass a 100e storm event um met with the Conservation Commission on uh earlier this week and um one of the comments um that kind of came out of that was that desire to see an additional pipe um somewhere in the middle um I did talk to the engineer about this um I looked at it myself and you know that there is a reason we have it spaced out like this um you can

kind of see it in the Contours here and also in the the profile here where there is this slightly higher section and it kind of directs the flows even though there's not a channel here they we just kind of direct in this area and then this area drain fls here not to say that there isn't ever any water in the middle just it's only going to be there during you know probably if there's a rapid snow mail or a very large snor event and that's going to be the first area that's going to dry out um so one of the things uh actually that also came out of that meeting um is the last name but um the uh application that was right after us and is currently right after us um the applicant contacted me and said he's worked in other states one of the things he's U familiar with and that cost less than in box cover our um corg middle Arch pip and um I haven't permitted any of those in New Hampshire I've only replaced them uh for municipalities as they rust out um but I did look into it and there are some pretty neat ideas as far as codings go and um I have a request out for pricing um on those see if we can get something that's a little cheaper conrete what little with a concrete box right and and what was getting at is um you know another factor is trying to do this as affordably as as possible those box cobs are very pricey for a residential driveway so in your experience you've had to replace some of these corrugated ones rusting out yeah I mean how many how many concrete box ones

have you replaced I haven't replaced any I mean their their Li span's pretty high however if you look at again I I know they're selling stuff but if you look at the literature um some of these omized Coatings that they have on them they're they're talking about 7500 year lifespans um and that's I think that's pretty darn good for a residential driveway this has a you have an intermittent stream so um Dees I mean often looks at in terms of the um stream and the um Wildlife that the box cover has a much bigger opening which for some wildlife passage is more desirable um so this is not an litical it's an arch pipe so the actual dimensions that I'm getting quoted are almost identical same size opening the only difference is the top instead of being squared off would have that Arch but the sides are relatively straight and the bottoms are relatively straight essentially they take a cover actually compress right right yeah yeah no I've seen them is that the stram yes so it's this is the very Ticky property yes yes yeah yes it is um and and that stream channel is is hard to find in places um because this property as you might remember when we were out there the flow was pretty heavily impacted by a previous logging operation um and you know there's a lot of old ruts a lot of you know slash and debris out there it's it's pretty difficult walking out there even in the summertime um so I mean that that stream chn that stream you can follow it but it's like stream skitter rut blocked by debris you

know yeah so um it's not real pretty out there no but you know I I think it will be eventually it's it's I think it's getting a little better over time so one of the things I was looking at is if we are able to get a more affordable pipe um you know might make it easier to add another structure there and what is this I what's what's the driveway for uh recreational use right now um and then with the possibility that you know they might want to build something in the future the driveway is designed for you know a normal driveway design so that it doesn't have to be modified in the future if somebody wants to um you know build a house there I can speak to that a little bit it we are exploring the area right now but we can't really get back there uh to do anything and to see what the views are like and where we would put a house so we're we're kind of in the exploratory phase but we we kind of have to get back there to to make that happen to make that that call but we are leaning towards building a house right now but it it definitely recreational use in the meantime but it's we're kind of at that phase where we you really just can't get back there it's even hard to walk back there it's it's pretty bad so lots of trees that are falling down there a lot of widowmakers and trees that are falling on trees that are falling on other trees I don't even recommend anybody go back there to be honest it's it's not really uh ideal it's wouldn't be a pleasure walk I'll put it that way I actually busted up my ACL walking back there so a few years ago but so is the application complete I noticed in the notes is this is this you Sandy no plan provide to accrate puffer impacts no no no that's the other project oh is this did this is this

one I maybe I F the form oh okay okay so you have the lot that's I think they got you have the lot that a bot says too I there was some when we're out there on S sidewalk there was some talk about accessing it through your first property that was discussed I think briefly yeah pretty briefly this is where I should have been I put the Conservation Commission comments on the wrong forms I switched so I'll make a motion to accept the application as complete those in favor actually there are some things that they need to provide to us but I know have been provided to Dees and that is um the functional assessment because I think that probably came in with the wetlands application but not to not as part of the cup thought there's a copy provided that I could be Mis looking I mean it could be that you have it he he's got it either either way it'll yeah I mean we we have it for Dees so yeah so we yeah we do need to get a copy of that one quick question before we go into the public just looking through the notes and the construction sequence and everything trying to understand what you're looking to to implement and one

of the items that's listed is installing guard rails can you speak to that like where would you intend to put guard rails um where the box covers are or essentially you know we try to bring this down relatively low to the grade so we're not having excess fill but we are also are proposing two to one side swopes um not the steepest side Swope but it's the steepest that I think someone can comfortably maintain um I don't know if you ever tried to use a weed whacker on a one to one slope but it's it's not fun um so um typically on on anything where somebody's going to be driving and we have a steep Swope at the edge of it we recommend some sort of guard rail that could be up to the owner we don't you know say it has to be installed it's there's usually not in there it just says you know this is up to the up to the owner but we recommend it sometimes that's a log placed you know at the edge of the driveway and sometimes it's a formal you know y rail uh um but I don't know I never know what the what the you know what people are exactly going to be using their driveway for what conditions they're going to be using them in and um my insurance company appreciates a recommendation of safety for okay um this is a public hearing so I will open this to the public kind of what same the exciting planning board um not seeing anybody I will close the public

hearing we need to schedule a site walk yeah that's so dangerous okay it is I I want to I want to make known that I really would discourage it on as part of the owner I don't think it's safe back there you can get hurt but you know I understand you get you might want to do that but just make it know it's all us if we do it's on us if we our AC thing and I know anybody get hurt back there because it is really a mess to walk through and even just you can see just the slope getting from 11's Drive is is is pretty steep so yeah just be very cautious that's all I would say do you want to schedule it tonight or we want to do it with when car's around because I don't think you'd want to do it at we won't want to do it at night right right like a Saturday do we want to ly 16th schedule it for 15 well before the oh before the no okay now the the the issue is and I didn't follow up with de is that right now the Conservation Commission is supposed to provide comments by February 3rd oh because of the time frame for when they submitted the application we did get one extension I guess we can get another technically I mean the way it was submitted was a an agreement yes they asked you basically will you right so so I mean technically I don't think we're under the same restrictions as a as a normal yeah but I that it was February 3D right that's February 3rd is is was the four 40 days so Saturday the 1st oh but but the thing as I mentioned at the conservation Mission meeting if if we need a little bit more time I'm not opposed to

requesting that yes yeah it would it but that they that you request more time because the thing is that um I mean the first isn't good because the Conservation Commission needs to meet after we have the site walk to Pro provide comment and so I think you know that's what I was initially thinking is how far in advance does that have to be posted say what well I think at least a couple of days um Ginger do you know hell far in advance thought it was a we I was asking it well Salk needs to be posted oh um I think it's either 10 10 or 14 days I'm not quite sure 14 days usually yeah I'm not sure it's that long but anyway I know we it's typically we schedule it like the day before the next meeting or or the weekend before yeah I think we do that because of the posting but we do have a meeting also on the 20th the planning board is on the 20th Saturday before well we're going all the way into February once again you know we're we're going need to see if the Conservation Commission can have the additional time to provide comment so you know I don't have any problem I think I don't know that we have an option like that I don't think we can't do it any earlier than the first I don't think that's back to what I was going to suggest

proposing oh before our meeting on the six yeah so does the conservation um commission meet twice a month no we meet once month so your next meeting is but if but we could also we can schedule a special meeting um to be able to want just have a work you know meeting on one project yeah so okay what first year why don't we first the February 1 Noti we posted two weeks prior to that yeah I mean so we're going to continue so we can come back and I can't see what two weeks prior to that two weeks prior is 18 is this Saturday 18 is this Saturday 1 January 18th 18th yeah so last yeah I mean then we'd have to get uh posted tomorrow if it's 14 yeah I thought it was um I don't know it might be a little tight because we have to post we have to contact them early in the morning to get it in for would get in by Saturday so you saying the eth would be better I I think a week out would might be best ref you Andy but Carrie being out I don't know if she Canna be out tomorrow sounds like the eth is the best option then just to be safe um yeah as long as I we can have the extra time get the extra time with Dees yeah he said that so it's scheduled for the 8th and

what time 10 a.m do you um 12 like 14 days 12:30 1230 o00 I work till noon every Saturday okay it is 14 days it is oh it is up for the planning board and then we'll make a motion to continue to February 20th yeah I'll make a mo since we're doing the S sidewalk I'll make a motion to continue this to the February 20th find any more meeting that work a second what time did we set on oh yeah I miss that just said what that I won't be able to make is earli betterle for you it would be I have a basketball game in Hillsboro or fifth sixth grade girls 1245 go for 10 so you're missing at least two yeah let's go for 10 then 10 all right February 8 10 o' make it work or did you vote on that motion to continue yes we did the maps back definitely voted for so that way you don't have to print them again oh we can I mean you save all the paper like to Ms we'll try to say yeah leave the stuff here save it in your it's stall the yeah

we get some people want to talk about this this this switch with the other one all right thank Youk all right application 41-24 ping that uh Family Trust what land protection conditional use permit for 2,866 Ft of wetland impact and 846 square feet of Woodland buffer impact for proposed residential driveway located off sou Road um we're also going to talk about um application 503 -24 um subdivision modification of application 53-5 to remove condition three stating that no construction activity which requires a building permit occur beyond the limits for grading and disturbance as shown on the plan of a new law made it off of South phone

so the PowerPoint one um yes there are a couple okay let me know any do you want me to put it up on the screen um sure you could put the first one up if I get this right Don will you have them introduce them St yes I'll set y okay um my name for the record Patricia panako I represent Eli laraman trusty of the S3 AK trust and miss delman is under contract to purchase 24.9 acre parcel that is the subject matter of these application it's known as tax map 27 block 3 blot 30i uh Mr lman and his wife are here tonight behind me I've got John Roki his engineer and Tom Sakowski his Wetland scientist with me here also and they're going to help me with this presentation in the area of their expertise so um the subject property here is located in the rural Zone and I'm just going to give you a brief piece of background because there's been a little bit of confusion about this particular parcel we get a really busy plan that was approved in 2006 and I took a little time to look behind that a bit and what I've got in my plans here is the top one is the original plan underneath the definition it's the gwet de Jagger subdivision with that created these two lots in 1978 um have extra one of those and the second one is the plan and it's upside down for a reason uh so you

can line up the green lines for the ls a little bit less confusion so the subject property which is lot I on the 2006 plan is located in the rural Zone 370 ft of Frontage more or less on South bow Road and is previously stated just under 25 acres of land we're here before the board this evening um to request that the subdivision approval for the 2006 plan we briefly opened to modify the conditions number three on the conditions of approval and to request a conditional use permit to build a driveway with three Wetland Crossings through the Wetland bua area to access the large area of Upland located at the North End of the property before reaching those items specifically the history of the pars so requires a little bit of conversation uh slide one shows the existing conditions and that's up there for those who may want to see it the brownish pink color is the buffer area and the I think the you've got a striped area that's a wetland in the middle is that right Tom yes that's correct and then in the back you've got uh what's that a buffer the black the black is the 50 Foot buffer adjacent to poorly drained soils and that pink um mauve color is the buffer adjacent to 7 or 75t buffer adjacent to very poorly drained soils okay so the um the photographs that are on either side of

the figure showing the lot show the areas go that that there's a trail that actually runs through this Pro property and there's actually a little wooden foot fridge you can see up in one of the top photos there that people have put there to go in and out of this property um to reach the backland towards the rear at the North End The Proposal as to the driveway is to build the driveway in the area where the trail is already located so getting back to those plans briefly lot and lot I were originally platted by plan 5279 which is the top plan that was in 1978 uh it shows Frontage on Wood Hill Road and on South B Road and this was the era before Wetlands started to be flagged if you look at the second plan in the package you'll see that plan 529 as I said was approved before Wetlands were marked but even then 5279 showed a pond on the Conor lot as well as the area that's now called grey lore of Farm Pond over on Lot G and you can see little lines where there might have been streams or whatever running through the property after the current owner acquired the two lots um lot I and Lot H they submitted the plan in 2005 showing both of these lots and basically what they did is a lot line adjustment and that was why I included those

definitions with these plans to explain there was no new lot created there's always been two lots the division line between the two of them changed as I understand at that time the Hope was uh that he could build a home closer to the pond but by 2005 the town had adopted its Wetlands Conservation District ordinance and even though the plan was recorded in 18092 in the registry it did not create a new lot the planning board required the applicant however to comply with the bone unit and to prove under the criteria of the ordinance that the Lots were buildable now under the terms of your ordinance buildable land includes the total contiguous land of area of a lot except slopes in excess of 25% and I'm probably telling you things you know but for the presentation or ledge which is exposed or lying within four feed of the soil surface Wetlands Wetland buffers are excluded as our easements in favor of the town and a number of other U flooding areas aquafit areas and land with unsuitable soil that's an adequate capacity for individual sanitary SE system that definition ironically has not changed since 2005 and that's important because on the front of the plan in 2006 you'll see right in the middle right there buildable area

there's a little chart there and we're interested in lot 30i lot 30i shows 17.99 Acres of buildable land that does not fall into any of the exemptions in the order according to this plan so that's important here because in 2006 that land was buildable land particularly towards the North End of the property and it remains buildable land now with that in mind there are other things to consider here and while the 7 1799 Acres serves as a buffer to the wetlands in the area and there is a significant wetland in the front the areas that fall into the buffers are buildable land and you may want to think of them as buildable land with a higher calling within a certain distance of a wetland it serves an additional purpose it is noteworthy that that Wetland Conservation District in 2005 as to the requirements that are shown in this chart have remain unchanged so when the 2006 plan was approved a cup application was also submitted for the proposed home the owner had hoped to build near the pond from what I have come to learn that driveway had 1900 100 square foot Wetland impacts 26 linear foot

stream impacts and approximately 11,000 ft of buffer impact the house location was near the pond but there was great opposition from the abuts and eventually it prompted the proposed home to be moved to the small Swatch of Upland that has direct Frontage on South po Road shown on the plan right along the frontage as a consequence no three of the conditions of approval States no construction activity requiring a building permit is allowed beyond the limits of the grading in disturbance shown on the plan of the new lot even though it wasn't a new law the note adjacent to the new lot describes buffer impacts without a driveway associated with disturbance at 9,215 Square ft now this we' we're here to ask that the application for the subdivision as it's called be reopened so that that restriction imposed as number three can either be amended or revised as the planning board sees fit the reasons why we were asking for that is because that land does not accommodate a single family home and leaving that restriction as is leaves this land unbuildable because you cannot get a permit to do anything on any other area of this site and that's technically

a regulatory taking and it's without basis there was a mistake made and to explain more about that I'm going to let Mr Roki take over because he has personally viewed the site uh yeah so the I went out I've been out to the site several times and I I went out and took a look at it even again today um there's several places of uh ledge outcroppings right in right in that small triangle area off of the road um which basically if you look at the if you look at the plan of what was proposed um they show they showed a septic that was in basically completely in the front set back and a house uh sitting like in a little triangle of area um the I don't know if a septic design was ever done on that but it's there there's an obvious ledge where you'd basically have to do a raay system um right right off of the edge of the road basically which would end up being probably higher than the than any sort of structure that you would try to put in um the the wetlands adjacent to this are the best wetlands in the entire property and you would be wiping out buffer uh right up against the best wetlands and highest functioning Wetlands on the site if you try to build right up against the road um and there's a house directly across the way I there there if you try to do anything in this front area you'd probably need a variance just to get the house in and you would end up with two houses sitting just literally right across the road from each other face to face um it does it it doesn't appear like the best the best way of trying to do anything on this lot and based on the ledge that I was seeing I don't know that you really could get a septic that would meet all the regulations for where you can put a septic and actually be able to physically get high enough above the ledge to have a raay system that

would work with the grading on the rest of the site so what about the well oh you'd have to you'd have to drill a well out in almost right up against the the Wetland uh the edge of the Wetland you'd have to go all the way out into the buffer to be able to drill a well that would be able to get far enough away from any septic that you could even try to propose on the site and that's pushing the septic probably with I think it was within like 10 ft of the front property line and you'd have to put a well back on the back corner where it's almost up against the Wetland to be able to get far enough away to have the 75t radius and still be on the property so in addition to that and we were talking about this earlier ourselves when this the little cutout on this plan shows the impacts to the buffers over 9,000 square fet but more importantly when people are allowed to build structures and homes up that close to the Wetland boundary it invites Min the grass clippings go in there and all kinds of things land in there because there is no buffer left to protect them so to that extent um because of these constraints we don't know why a what due diligence was done when that note was imposed at that time we're asking for that to be removed and us we be allowed to build a driveway to reach the acreage at the North End of the property described on this chart as over 17 Acres of Upland to build a home in that location so to to build that driveway

the driveway is proposed to be 1,200 ft long 14 ft wide and a gravel surface and it's to reach the buildable area described on this 2006 plan that remains on the site the applicant has been issued a wetland permit by Dees this past December for three Crossings with a total of 2,663 square fet of wetland impact 203 ft of temporary impact s and approximately 11,000 square ft of buffer impact the same as was proposed in the buffler in 2005 this Wetland impact is just a little more than half of the amount that was approved at 93 Allen Road in 2003 2023 which ABS this property where there was 4,632 ft of wetland impact 852 Square ft of temporary Wetland impacts and there's no quantities at all listed on the approved plan showing how much of the buffer was impacted so I can't speak to that under EnV WT 39.0 6 Pern 21 of the dees administrative rules residential driveway to access a single family home is called a minimum impact project it's not a major project and this driveway is proposed to follow the

existing Trail through the woods through the forest as shown in those photos could you go to the next one thank you oh back one oh this one yes so that's a little closer you can see the little foot Bridge that's the little walking thing there in a couple of the photos but you can see the pathway that's already there going through the woods and great thought in care has been given to the design and the location of this driveway to ensure that on both sides it remains as far away from the Wetland as is reasonably possible while providing providing safe access to reach the buildable area in the back the 17 Acres of a build the buildable land was buildable in 2006 and it remains buildable now important to remember with a conditional use permit it's analogous to a special exception that we see in the zoning context it is a permitted use subject to the satisfaction of conditions listed in your ordinance basically it gives the planning board the jurisdiction over the buffer area to make sure we do it right and we don't do things um without thought and without Prof proper professional guidance to harm Wetlands buffers are not meant to deny access or denied use but to give you control over what done there to protect that Wetland now under your ordinance

um the test requires us to the first item it says activity in use is consistent with the purpose of the wcd a driveway is a use that's permitted under your ordinance under section 12.02 c parentheses to and allowed to go through the buffer by your ordinance with your supervision and approval as a permitted use is subject to those conditions and we have the burden of proving that we've done the utmost to prevent harm to the Wetland letter B the proposed activity minimizes the the degradation or loss of wetland or Wetland buffers adverse impacts to functions and values of wetlands and Wetland buffers as determined by a wetland evaluation and with that said I'm going to turn this over to Tom because Tom has the knowledge to be able to respond to this thank you P thank you my name is Tom soosi I'm a certified welman scientist certified by the state of Newan I prepared the Wetland permit application that was submitted to Dees and uh was successfully approved in December as Pat just mentioned as Pat mentioned too um a lot of thought went into exactly where this driveway access would go for this project following a an existing foot path that is the only real disturbance across the site that foot path was located quite well by whoever played it out in that it minimizes Crossing of wetlands it basically comes

into the frontage off of South B road goes across a small Upland island with Wetlands surrounding it crosses another Wetland um that actually is a connected Wetland all around that small island and hits Upland that is almost continuous out to the proposed building site there is a small finger of wetland that comes off of the large Cor W if you remember the striped area on the plan that Pat was showing earlier that small seepage comes close to the property line up and above there we originally had hoped that we could avoid that third Wetland impact by going up and around it and that would have required a zoning um variance uh that was denied by the zoning board last year because it would be within 20 ft of the property line the owner of of the property there was at the zoning board meeting and was very adamant opposed to that driveway being within 20 ft of his property line that necessitated going with the driveway through the narrowest portion of that little Wetland neck and out to that building area so we minimized the Wetland impacts to the greatest extent that we could which is a requirement by the state for obtaining Wetland permit and in doing so we also tried to avoid the amount of work that could be entailed within the Wetland buffer so the layout of the wetlands on the site make it almost impossible to avoid the Wetland buffer away from The Crossings because they parallel the property lines in most cases um for the state Wetland permit application I also prepar the functions and values analysis of the wetlands on the site the large majority of the wetlands are forested and um mature

Forest vegetation from primarily red maple exists on them there's an intimate stream channel that runs way up and around behind the proposed building area that connects almost up to the rear property line and outlines the buildable Upland area that Pat has mentioned which is the location where the um house and septic and so forth is proposed and um essentially what we've um been successful at doing is getting a state approval that we have um minimized the Wetland impacts to the greatest extent possible and minimize the impacts to Wetlands functions and values to the extent that's possible those are two goals that the state requires that you have demonstrated properly and those are generally mirrored in your um conservation District's rules which I'll touch upon here article 10.01 your Wetlands Conservation District section f starts out with a statement that in accord ordance with article 10.01 section F2 of the zoning ordinance a conditional use permit may be issued by the planning board for the construction repair and or maintenance of streets roads and other accessways provided that all of the following conditions are met there are four conditions that are listed the first of those is that the proposed activity or use is consistent with the purposes of the Wetland Conservation districts essentially we are basically looking to put in a minimal impact driveway through this area gravel surfaced the minimization of wetland Crossings helps to protect the functions and values of those Wetlands the location where possible of the driveway outside of the Wetland

buffer also contributes to minimizing the impact both to the buffer and to the wetlands by locating it as far from the Wetland as possible allowing the buffer to perform its intended function which is basically to keep the Wetland from having impacts in the long term from the use of the um driveway or whatever other use that's being proposed the access to this area is in our view quite reasonable that the location of the proposed devel vment is the best developable land on the parcel as Mr Roi had mentioned the frontage area along southb Road as shallow bedrock and would be a challenge to both develop to grade and to keep from being a very obtrusive element along the South bro Road um Frontage with a house directly across the street and our proposed layout essentially helps to not only mitigate the impact of the wetlands of two Wetlands but also to their functions and values so what we have I just want to add one thing to the The Crossings like when we were going through the state of New Hampshire process uh The Crossings the culverts were upsized and turned into Arch culverts to uh make sure the functions values were enhanced and crater passage and stuff like that so uh the cards are actually oversized compared to any amount of drainage that's going to go through them as well a Mr Roki had sized the culverts in accordance with the um state requirements for storm waterer management allowing passage of a certain design

storm the original proposal that we had were 18-in round culit which would have been adequate to pass the design storms fishing game when they reviewed this because they have a rare species in the general vicinity Landing turtle is a location that's known on the um southern boundary of the town of B adjacent to I believe it's Dunbarton and it's about 3/4 of a mile from the site but anything within a mile in terms of a rare species hit involves New Hampshire fishing game and they requested that we upsize the culverts on the on the property and we've gone from that 18-in round pipe to 30in oval pipes embedded approximately 6 in into the substrate which facilitates animal crossings underneath the road rather than going over the road and the concern being that anything that goes over a road is liable to be hit by a car and a driveway situation obviously is much less traffic than a Town Road or state road or anything like that but even so that's what the fishing game department requested and we have complied with that not just on that first Crossing which is a adjacent to the open Pond or Marsh area that is mostly on the abing parcel but also on the other two Crossings as well even though they're far smaller in um terms of flow that might go across those second two Crossings so um moving along the second condition under uh the uh um Wetlands Conservation District that needs to be met the proposed activity minimizes the degradation to and LA of wetlands and wetlands buffers minimizes any adverse impact of the functions values of the wetlands and the buffers as determined by an evaluation and I've already gone over that to a large extent but to go into the functions and values that are

important out here among these Wetlands what I had done in the functions and valys Analysis was to separate out the different types of wetlands on the property that have their own individual characteristics and values the first one is that open pond that's on the southwestern corner of the property closer to um the uh um end of southb road that is a very different Wetland vegetative type than the rest of the site which is mature Forest that open area has different types of wildlife habitat value much more in line with what traditional Wetland uh habitat is considered to be for things such as Turtles for water foul waiting Birds and the like the forested wetlands we evaluated as pretty much uh the same sort of overall um level of functions and values they're low-lying areas that are positioned quite well for um retaining sediment for receiving and transforming nutrients such as fertilizers um any other uh sorts of waste animal waste that may get into them they basically can take up the nutrients and sequester them into vegetation and then release them slowly when the vegetation such as leaves salling decompose storm water um and flood water retention is another function that these wetlands have uh in um in terms of their ability to retain water and release it slowly over time rather than flushing it all up through in a in a quick um uh heavy rainfall and production export to a

certain extent is present but the vegetative production that is present in this Wetland system is essentially contained because there is no permanent flowing Outlet there's minimal use of this habitat by animals that would basically consume the vegetation and take it out out and deposit the remains in in other areas but our alignment of the driveway is above that Marsh below the forested wetlands except at those Crossings and hits those Crossings at relatively high points so that there are basically minimal areas above them that would be disturbed and Below them the um areas where the driveway culverts would be located would allow for the flow of water from the upper portions of that wed in the wetlands to the lower portions groundwater discharge was also evaluated as being a highly um um functional um aspect of these wetlands in that the majority of the soils on the site have a dense glacial till material that minimizes the amount of water that can reach the underlying aquifer and promotes sheet flow over that impervious soil layer or bedrock in some cases and outlets at the surface and that's basically in the form of either Springs or seepage more likely in these um instances on these Wetlands um our design of the road of the driveway out into the site minimizes the alteration or the potential for alteration of any of these functions we're not putting a driveway through the

lowest part of these Wetlands which would tend to displace storm water storage or minimize the ability of the wetlands to detain and um transform nutrients or to detain sediments third function or the third uh condition that the um Wetlands Conservation District uh tests um require is that the proposed activity minimizes environmental impacts to AB budding and downstream Properties or hydrologically connected Waters and Wetland resources and we accomplished that through the oversizing of culverts that promote the continued current flows of water through the area rather than constricting them and creating situations where potential um for erosion events sedimentation might occur that could affect the butters the driveway also goes through a um pretty well vegetated part of the site so that our driveway is not going to be readily visible to abutting property owners and overall we are mitigating or avoiding any alteration that would impact a budding Property Owners or Downstream resources the fourth test is that the proposed activity or use cannot practicably be located otherwise on the site to eliminate or reduce the impact to the Wetland resources in that we've pretty well covered between Pat and John ri's discussions of why the frontage area is essentially unbuildable and that the best location for this development U of A single family house

is where proposed out in the largest area of Upland soils on the site so um with that covered I think uh go back to that to continue the presentation okay um e was the proposed activity or use cannot practice be located otherwise on the site to eliminate or reduce the impact to the Wetland buffer if you look at the plans um that show the buffer and the Wetland you can see that as the driveway progresses through the site there really is no Upland other than the buffer itself to pass through until you reach the building of a land located to the north because the striping is actually the Wetland itself or the gray and the pink are the buffer so from a practical Viewpoint there really is no other way or other location where it could be placed other than in the buffer which is an Upland location f is the federal estate permits have been received for the proposed activity in accordance with New Hampshire administrative rules EnV WT 100 through 900 in the federal section for a whole permit there are no federal permits required for um this minor Wetland project or per that the three culverts were characterized because it is just a residential driveway but we do have the Wetland permit from the state that was issued in December of 2024

G um we applicable proof of compliance with all other state or federal regulations has been received there are no other state or federal permits required this is a single family residential home and it's a residential driveway so just local permits are required now there's also some questions under article 12.05 the planning board shall issue a conditional permit if it finds the following the use is specifically authorized by Article 5 Section 5.11 table of uses regulations as a conditional use actually um a single family home is expressly permitted in the rural district and a wetland um a conditional use permit or the Wetland Conservation District allows a driveway subject to this board's review um and granting of a conditional use permit so again once it's a permitted use subject to your oversight if completed as proposed by the applicant the development in its proposed location will comply with all requirements of this article and the specific conditions or standards established in this ordinance for this particular use except for this conditional use permit this proposed single family home will fully comply with zoning meet all setbacks and follow all the rules and regulations in the town of B and there are there are there is no other relief required C the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety um

by definition a permitted use would not endanger the public health safety or welfare the proposed driveway design uh which does impact wetlands and its buffer has been appropriately permitted appropriately designed and thought through at a very high level to minimize any adverse impacts to the environment and the house is set back quite a distance from the road it it me may not even know it's in there so I don't think there'll be any harm to public health safety or welfare the use will be compatible with the neighborhoods and with the adjoining or abing uses in the area in which it is to be located this is a residential neighborhood there are single family homes um located on all of the abing lots and it will fit in nicely amongst the all of them and I think I think that was it all right oh the utilities the utilities are available I'll make a motion to accept the application as complete second favor so we get a uh I don't know whether a copy of the functional assessment was submitted it was it was with the Wetland permit application that you've got a copy of but it but our zoning requires the that can be submitted um I'd rather have the full functional the sheets right yeah thank you um the area out front that's not suitable what's the square footage of that area that would actually be any like how much how exact square foot in

could could you actually just give your name Eli lurman the one of the applicants yeah we just want name for what yeah it's about 13,000 Square F feet what what you end up what ends up happening if you basically just you end up with the road the farm set back from the road that cuts 30 ft into the front you end up with the this is the highest the highest functioning wetland in the site so you have a 75t buffer against it and there's a like actually see it on this but that's what I was looking for it ends up it ends up squeezing it from every single direction from the front from both sides or from both sides and the rear it it squeezes it down to the triangle did you agree like it's 13,000 that sound about right is it 13,000 with the squeezing that you mentioned or is it the entire Upland area is the entire Upland area 13,000 or is it the bu the whatever's left of the uh area that's outside of a setback area the entire area so it's less in if you take out all the setbacks you're probably at like 3 4,000 square feet of area that's not much space so if you think of the house you have to get a house a septic a driveway a well you have to get all those things to fit normally you end up with maybe an acre and a half of area that you disturb for just a regular single family house um trying to force a house into that area with ledge right on the road it's just it's not a good place to put it do you have the notes as to why that condition was made by the planning board back in 2006 like what was the what was the decision to say okay you can do all this but only if you build right here do you have any of that research I think yes I I did review the minutes and when I went through them

what I there was several meeting and and from what I could glean there was an because the home that was being proposed my best guess okay it was it's somewhere over in this area near the pond the abuts did not want a home over there that close to the pond it one had um an issue with a view the other um it was very close to the pond also and there's also an easement in that area a right of way that you can see referenced right next to that that it's on the um 2006 plan it says here the uh Perpetual 15t wide RightWay Eastman over the LW 30h to 30g that was going through that area also so there was a great deal of a butter opposition I went to that question also and what we also know too is that there was a wetland scientist who was present for many of the hearings but I don't know we didn't see any kind of reference to an engineer or a lot designer like John does to kind of say okay what can we fit where and what is practical and what is not so to the best of my knowledge that's all I could tell all right I'm going to open this to the public if this state and sha R 101 woodill Road uh I'm I'm in a butter um I was at the 2005 presentation where the modification for the 1978 plan which' got uh push back and then is where the two sites are today there's actually a foundation in there an old farmhouse Foundation that's

in that area it's on our town map um all I asked for at the meeting I had actually submitted in 2005 these two pages of the issues back there uh including the the drainage requirements for that area where we lost South bow road because we had a culvert Gap right there the water fills that whole area went over the road and took southb Road out if anybody remembers it was about 15 years ago um I I know there were other Butters at the time I'm the only one left out of the five that live there almost everyone is is new has moved in there recently um I like the little path of the bicycle uh bridge for the guy across the street who uses that land um but in all reality we requested based on the map the map was drawn and was reviewed in middle of winter and in the late August when it's the driest so since the application originally was in April we asked for a walk so the town we took a walk and where the house was going to be was in 7 in of water and where that bridge is right there was in 14 Ines of water and so where where is right in the middle of where the driveway is going to be in March and April when the thaw happens uh we actually take all the drain off of all of the area around us there are four streams that feed into the pond and also come in on the backside and so during the wetest time of the the year uh that place is really really this driveway that they're proposing unless they make it 24 in high

they will have to drive through water unless they put other Drainage Systems in which is not possible because what you're talking about that is a marsh that you go through right there um it's not like a stream that you can just put a bridge over it's a it it's part of the uh uh not only is the map when we first saw the maps we were like hey this these two have to grow together the map shows two Wetlands it shows a boundary and then there's a gap in the middle and there's there is a little high there that's why that path was put there by the the next door neighbor right there's all sorts of people if you look at the all Trails map you can see that Trail that's back there but if you try to go in there in March or we have any issues with the pond um that whole area there unless it's raised significantly is water those two sides become one and I didn't want to make a big deal out of it all I wanted to do is say hey in my original um in my original request was everybody kept the original request was in the 2005 this is a 2005 paper that then we did the site walk but we did the site walk when it was wet if you go there now the ground's hard as rock it's frozen you can't say tell where water is and where Bedrock is but you go in there and March if we've had any snow and it's there's a mini Pond right there so we were we uh at the time Maria Brown owns the corner which the town has to do quite a bit of work every year that right on the corner where southb Road and 101 come in there's a culvert there that goes under and then there's the Culvert that takes the stream which

is the drain from the whole entire region out of the pond and this Wetland and takes it under the road right next to that other house so when we did the walk we asked where would you put a driveway and at the end of the walk I suspect there's minutes from that 2005 meeting but basically that's what this second one here was you can still build on the site you can build on the original to um from the 1978 plot plan but you can't go beyond right here due to the wetlands boundary and the wetlands buffer good anybody else in the public that um I I live at 103 Wood Hill Road uh I believe um lot 30g uh Stephen Jeffers recently bought the property from the last owner um I I share my neighbors concern concerns um also um I've heard setbacks are 75 fet if I go by the scale of the map that was given to me then uh parts of the driveway and the building come within that yeah that's what they're right asking for is permission to go into that that there are the two zones I talk but those Connect into one Water Area you would have to raise that from the first one to the second one to get overw waterer or you would have to put drainage in which is hard because it's a marsh that's what we found during the walk was when you walk in there it's not like it's a stream you could diverted or move it or whatever the whole thing is a big huge Marsh the little mini Pond that was referenced in the beginning that was in the

corner as you know the life cycle of a pond especially a beaver pond starts with a nice six s foot deep Pond but it fills up with silt over time and what happened to Marsha Brown's property on the corner she was there for 30 years before she passed away and that is just a big huge swamp now it doesn't have the same sort of capacity for flooding uh and the same is true with um the bigger Pond the bigger Pond when I moved in was 8 and 1/2 ft deep 10 ft off of my house because that used to be the irrigation for my house now it's 2 and 1/2 ft it's almost completely filled with silk um the beaver has taken action to actually raise the dam and so the water table has increased by 3 ft in that area in the last year um the previous owner in that area um for the on the other side of this and this is why a site walk is very important is that the abing property right there on southb road where we have that the town has the big CT that takes the drainage through the bottom there you sort of need to put that in context with what this driveway is going to do this driveway even if raised a foot the culverts will provide drainage but there'll be c a lot of areas along that driveway that water will still be caught and that's all I say we we asked why we couldn't where they put the property this time is up in the middle very nice it's very flat up there a lot of people from Tower Hill hike down there and so if there's an opportunity where it's much drier there's no real Wetlands up there to come from Tower Hill to the same property that would be way better

than digging this up yeah it's tough put driveways over other people's property anybody else from the public 20 South B road we have uh three recommendations for the board prior to making your decision at whichever next point that will be the first on the last site walk the current location of the driveway was not Stak uh the previous design was and so we haven't the last s sidewalk what do you last s sidewalk was for the for the wetlands permit in the fall right uh so I would recommend that the board requests that the new driveway be fully Stak so that you can see it clearly second recommendation is that uh this is called lot 30i for a reason uh the lawyer referred to uh the subdivision decision most recently documented but 30i as we know indicates there was a whole series of subdivision uh decisions made and I think it would be best for the lawyer to describe those various other subdivisions that were made in the ordinances that were in place at that time that governed it and then the third and final recommendation um would be that uh Tom's original Wetlands application to DS listed this as a Major Impact he just described it as a minor impact and I'm sure Tom's a very good one side this expert we would just like to know tonight obviously ly a little bit about how that transitioned from major to I'm sure he can explain that to us in good detail to you in good detail thank you I can if you wanted to take that out of order here yeah if you were here originally we classified it as a minimum impact project because the total Wetland impact was under 3,000 square fet and that's falls into the category of minimum impact project however the um determination by the natural heritage Bureau that blandings Turtle a rare

species actually an endangered species at the state level was found within a mile of the site automatically elevates the project to a Major Impact so technically it's a Major Impact project but only because there's a rare Turtle that's known to have existed at some point in the past 20 plus years within a mile of the site so that's how it got to a major how did it get back down to a minor then it isn't a minor it's basically minor min animal um project descriptions as um an attorney but lay in terms of a wetland science uh described it as a small Wetland impact I just relied on the rules that say driveways are minor and I guess that got elevated when you get to the point of a wetland permit application and you get into um the larger amounts of wetland impacts it normally is required to be 10,000 squ ft to be a Major Impact project but it can be any amount of wetland impact as long as you have a rare species nearby it's automatically elevated to a Major Impact thank you you're welcome I I could answer one question from the prior one where we're talking about how to how to build a driveway we have what we have is a wetland dredge and fill permit so essentially what we're doing is we're going to we're going to Dred across there to to the underlying soil and build up the driveway from there so it's the the driveway is going to sit on solid soil when we're when we start building it up and compacting it the culverts are oversized to pass the flows through basically unimpeded uh so at there's two spots where it where it concentrates and we have oversized culverts at both of those spots so even if there's a lot of water coming through there to hit either of those spots uh everything is designed to basically flow right through the

driveway and the driveway is the surface of the driveway is going to be I think three or three or 4 feet higher than the existing grade right in that spot as we go down and across it okay um we still in public hearing anybody else that I think I had heard somewhere up here about could you say your name max97 brownill I'm sorry I didn't get the last name exm ex and address again I'm sorry 97 Brown Road um I just I thought I heard say about Crossing some somebody else's property but Eli have you thought to talk to the guy at the top of the hill I did oh you did right away I got you even if you were exchanging some land there and working it out so you could subdivide some for him I mean I'm just I making you know some some suggestions I and I realized the panel up here is not part of you know being part of that process but certainly it seems like up there would be way better to build so so anyways your comments there's some better land places and has he talked to yeah and you have talked to other neighbors to look for a different access and I have our uh real estate agent spoke to the two adjacent neighbors there's emails um in the narrative we asked if they would allow us to ride away through their property to avoid all these wetlands and they book said no thank you okay good talk any anybody else see any I'm going to close the public hearing I me I think it's obvious from where I stand like a lot of this discussion we need context with with the sidewalk um before we can even get into many of the things it's just it's a complex Crossing and so yes

um we can make a uh motion this is not have a regional impact though okay all those in favor of not being Regional impact all right we want to schedule a s sidewalk yeah we do it back to back with the other one does that make sense do a tour of both you could although you don't really kind of hard to figure out how long I they both kind of big I think that's going to take longer yeah yeah all right I mean you we can do whatever don't base it off of my schedule but I I wouldn't be able to do both we want to do it on the 15th at the same time with the original one would you be the driveway St St um the driveway is staked and has been staked this entire time since uh last year no it wasn't completely staked when we were out there for the Wetland permit um sidewalk it's Stak now this morning right okay so the 15th at 10:30 does that work or do you want to do noon or do you have a game they said no no no game that day that day I'm no I'm open should we do 12:30 so yeah let's do 12:30 on the 15th okay yes important detail and then we will continue till then I'll make a motion to continue [Music] applications 50324 and does anyone have the other one 503 503

513 413 that's 24 to the February 20th meeting that no favor one one thing that I wanted to ask is I know that um there was a a plan with the Wetland buffer shown but it doesn't show the impact area of the to the buffers so it's just like because I um I know there was some mentioned originally the application said 864 ft impact buffers and then it's sort of at 11,000 but I'm not sure where it's not clearly marked on any map that I've seen three page three of the pl shows the one the bottom middle right yeah it doesn't it doesn't mention the the it does show the extent that's the impact of the bumper right it doesn't show the numbers numbers are on the first page bottom kind of in the middle 2,000 something to the poorly drain soil and 8,000 something to the very poorly drained soil right it doesn't say buffer impacts those are the buffer impact it says very say poorly drained area impact pack so is that that is so that's that is the buffer so he's saying buffer buffers to those okay so these are buffers okay it's not

labeled did we have continued it okay you continue both yes yes than not we continue hearing this we got the sidewalk y it is okay there's two de something else the January one yeah we'll let um was there anybody here that was for something else before we get into our approving minutes things do night yes whether or not the copy of this or it still should be on record you know to leave a copy with Andra would be great yes I would great thank you and I bet you we'll end up with more copies of that in next month package color C the whole time I was look at the Black and Whites the whole time I just Rel yeah okay did you yeah Ginger we're gonna do the

minutes well I'm there kind of but not I can also give you my copy after I okay uh let's say um 133 yep after it a Southeast corner of the property rather than say no longer says does not eat so take out the S and say does not rather no longer line 35 um the sizes of the Wetland buffers and um so take off the S on Wetland and add the word buffers and then um at the end of that line uh was found to be less than a quarter acre in area uh next page um 57 um only remaining W and buffer impacts are in there and I would say the Northwest portion of the site well instead of top left instead of top left yeah um wait should we that be more clear if it was a like Northwest like what's top what's top left that's why I said Northwest oh that's what you said sorry we're in the same we're in the same frame of mind um and then um the paragraph with 60 through 63 it actually had been described earlier by Amy Sanders so I I thought it might

be good for line 60 to say um as Miss Sanders had noted comma Mr Hurley explained that the data plots he completed rather than conducted um and then um it's uh wet area observed it's it I think it was only the one wet area um line uh 92 um we kind of some extra words so we must question to what extent the use can be accommodated so take out the use uh it extent the use to what extent the use can be accommodated okay got it um that's it on that one I make a motion to approve the minutes of December 19th 2024 as amended second all those in favor I close and then I have no suggested changes for January 2nd that was New Year miracle was always zoning ordinances yeah it was the easiest one in the books that uh were explained very clearly by Carrie I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of January 2nd 2025 second all those in favor I I'll make a motion to adjourn second all those in favor