PRELIMINARY MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 8, 2010
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
7:00 pm Start of Meeting
Members present: GMorris, JAdams, JFletcher, MBorden, BMarshall, MSteere and KO’Connell. GMorris called the meeting to order at 7:00.
JFletcher read the meeting minutes for 1/25/10. MSteere motioned that 1/25/10 minutes be accepted. MBorden seconded the motion. Unanimous ayes.
GMorris reminded everyone about the 2/8/10 meeting for the Trosky subdivision. He stated that he would pull the minutes for the 2007 subdivision hearing on this property.
Mail
The following mail was received.
1. Notice regarding the Executive Board Meeting of NH Municipal Management Association on 2/19/10 meeting in Concord. MBorden stated he could probably attend.
2. Town Administrator forwarded a copy of a NH Council on Resources & Development memorandum on “Report on Growth Management” asking the PB for assistance on this report. GMorris read the memo. JAdams questioned; “what is smart growth?” BMarshall explained that we have to define what “smart growth” is and once defined, we have to propose what developmental opportunities would benefit the town, how to apply degrees of “smart growth” to the town, which in turn will either promote or inhibit support/assistance from state. BMarshall questioned what development has happened in past 4 years or how has the Planning Board helped with
that growth. JFletcher commented that the Board hasn’t been too restrictive, and that his company did a PowerPoint CD for a client on “smart growth”. The CD has not been published by the client so he will forward it to the Board members. The CD will explain and define “smart growth.”
3. There are two invoices. One for Sharon Rossi’s secretarial fees and the other is newspaper fees for the notification of the February 10, 2010 Trosky hearing. The total is $146.20 which may be split with ZBA.
4. A letter from the office of Lawyer Robert Howard informing us that his client, Peter Davenport, made a mistake for voluntary merger in acreage from .38 to .68 acres for his Forest Road property. GMorris advised that he would check with Catherine Shaw to see how to proceed.
5. NHDES drinking water source 2010 Winter Edition
6. SWRPC Commission Highlights Jan 2010 newsletter
7. Select Board’s minutes for 1/13/10.
GMorris noted that with a full board sitting, BMarshall is sitting as alternate for the PCC for Miner Road.
7:20 pm PCC for Miner Property on Miner Road
Dawn Tuomala, Monadnock Survey Company is presenting information re: the Miner Road subdivision for the Miner family. GMorris read procedures for PCC. The Miners want to subdivide the acreage as part of their estate planning. The lot R7-27, R7-27.1, R7-27.2 and R7-27.3 are located on Miner Road & Etna Road. Page 1 of the plan shows lot R7- 27 where Monadnock Survey will be creating 3 parcels of land. DTuomala asked what lot #’s do you want to see on that division. GMorris advised Ms. Tuomala to call Catherine Shaw to get the #’s. She stated that the tax map has created a subdivision in a sense as the numbers of 27.1, 27.2 & 27.3 are already listed in the town records. JAdams explained that tax map numbers are just numbers and not actual lots.
Page 2 shows the entire Miner property with frontage on Forest Road and Miner Rd. GMorris explained that as long as access is shown, the Board could approve these lots. Access from Forest Road would require State approval while access from Miner Road would require the Town’s Road Agent approval. GMorris also stated that driveway access should be shown on the plans.
DTuomala is asking not to do onsite delineation of wetlands on the blueprints. KO’Connell pointed out that delineation was done on McAllasters property further down on Miner Road. DTuomala stated there are no wetlands in the front part of the property and only in back, so there are no wetlands within the buildable area. JAdams stated that there are wetlands along Forest Road. KO’Connell stated that the Building Inspector will need to know where the wetlands are before he can issue a building permit. DTuomala stated that the company can/will list requirements on maps concerning wetlands. MSteere commented that wetland delineation will show that building cannot be done on certain areas of the property. DTuomala said these lots for estate purposes and she’s not sure what future plans would be. BMarshall said, “Intent today means squat tomorrow.”
Delineation from wetlands: GMorris stated that she has shown dry land, or a building envelope, and there are two zoning districts involved. Rural/Agricultural requires different acreage and frontage from residential. MBorden states that it does matter where it property is being accessed from. Also GMorris said that showing where building is to be erected is another piece of information the Board would need to make a decision. If access is from Forest Road, the Planning Board is required to have a permit from the State. GMorris said showing wetlands in these large parcels without that delineation could cause delay in the process. MSteere said that a wetlands soil scientist is the only person who can do this. BMarshall asked if we can meet halfway on showing the wetlands. DTuomala stated that she is a
wetlands scientist, and then explained that test holes are dug every 50’ to find what kind of soils are on the property and they also need to check on hydrogeology, as well as plant life. KO’Connell asked, “what if you turn around and mark developable/buildable areas in each of those lots and then determine there’s wetlands on it?” MSteere said that surveyors should make sure that the lot is buildable and without wetlands. DTuomala will make a note on the plans that any further changes will have to go before Planning Board.
DTuomala stated that the current two houses do not have approved existing septic systems. MSteere said the Planning Board would need a rough location of well and waste systems being used by the current houses. MSteere questioned about the boundary line agreement at the gravel pit. A line agreement between the owners and the town for the gravel pit will have to be in place. MSteere suggested that the Selectmen walk with surveyor to come to the line agreement.
DTuomala asked how many lots are in this subdivision for the purpose of fees. MSteere stated there are 6 lots.
8:15 pm concluded the PCC for the Miner subdivision.
GMorris then proceeded with discussion for possible changes to the site plan review. BMarshall had recommended that any reference to non-residential be removed and making it site plan review. Board went through this rather thoroughly and MSteere stated that site review change would require a public hearing. GMorris said that if KO’Connell and MSteere finish their subdivision work, then a public hearing can be scheduled for both items. BMarshall and GMorris willl meet to get CIP report done as well.
KO’Connell began a brief discussion re: back lots. He commented about “the intent of the ordinance that the creation of back lots be (E1e) shall have a minimum area of not less than ten (10) acres and questioned what part of that is unsuitable for development. Wetland was the response by Board. MBorden quoted the ordinance: “look at minimum area of not less than 10 acres…… 100’ setback requires 300’ requirement. Also for a back lot in rural areas, it must have square of developable property. JFletcher said if accessed in rural/agricultural, it sounds like we have to have to larger envelope. MBorden stated with mixed zoning districts within lots, wherever you access the lot from is the requirement for the lot usage. If access is located in rural/agricultural, the
rural/agricultural requirement is met. MSteere always understood that in the case of questions that you used the more restrictive requirement for Town Zoning laws. KO’Connell brought this up because it will need to be looked at for Wednesday’s meeting.
MS moved to adjourned. JF seconded. Ayes have it. Meeting adjourned at 8:35pm.
| 
