The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Grange Hall by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members James Nordstrom, Travis Daniels, and Christopher Johnson; ex-officio Dave Woodbury; and, alternate Bob Furey. Also present was Planning Coordinator Nicola Strong.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, were Craig Francisco, LLS, Tim O'Brien, Bill & Sharon Elliott, Donna & Bob Chase, John & Diane Norton, Chris Martin, William Jacobson, Dan Donovan, Jr., Dan Donovan, II, Randy Haight, LLS, Morgan Hollis, Esq., Dean Glow, Dave Elliott, Mitch Larochelle and Brandy Mitroff.
O’BRIEN, TIMOTHY & SUZANNE
CVI DEVELOPMENT, INC. Adjourned from 12/23/03
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Fraser Road
Tax Map/Lot# 8/62-7 & 8/62-8
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present were Craig Francisco, LLS, and Tim O'Brien.
Craig Francisco, LLS, stated that per the Planning Board's discussion at the last hearing on this application, Lot #8/62-7 would be increased in size and Lot #8/62-8 would be decreased, but with no reduction in frontage. He noted that Lot #8/62-8 was now 1.001 acres in size which kept it above the one acre cluster lot minimum.
James Nordstrom asked if Tim O'Brien was satisfied with the outcome. Tim O'Brien stated that he was. He acknowledged that some of the responsibility was his, but he was not experienced in house building and did not know where his lot lines were.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for CVI Development, Inc., and Timothy & Suzanne O'Brien, for Tax Map/Lot #8/62-7 & 8/62-8, Fraser Drive, such that Parcel A of 0.136 acres is annexed from Tax Map/Lot #8/62-8 to Tax Map/Lot #8/62-7, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application, including the cost of recording the mylar at the Registry of Deeds.
4. Submission of a certificate of monuments set based on the plan as presented at this hearing.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be January 30, 2004, confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, requiring no further action by
O'BRIEN/CVI DEVELOPMENT, INC., cont.
the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
There being time before the next scheduled hearing, the Board moved on to Miscellaneous Business.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2004.
1. Approval of minutes of December 9, 2003, with or without changes. (Distributed at the January 6th meeting.)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of December 9, 2003, as written. Christopher Johnson seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman noted that he and the Secretary would endorse items 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 at the end of the meeting.
2. Signature required for a subdivision agreement for R.J. Communities, LLC, Tax Map/Lot # 6/32 and 9/22, by the Planning Board Chairman.
3. Endorsement of a subdivision plan for Kenneth R. and Gloria J. Barss, Tax Map/Lot # 14/116.
4. Signatures required for the approval of a site plan for Lisa Curtis, 488 Francestown Road, Tax Map/Lot # 4/7, for the Board’s action.
5. Signatures required for the approval of a site plan for Susan Martin, 111 South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot # 14/1, for the Board’s action.
6. Signatures required for the approval of a site plan for Henry and Jean Plonski, 48 River Road, Tax Map/Lot # 18/24, for the Board’s action.
7. The 2003 New Boston Planning Department Statement of Condition, Income and Expense Report was distributed for the Board’s information.
8. Daily road inspection reports dated December 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th from Dufresne-Henry, Re: Waldorf Estates, were distributed for the Board’s information.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
9. Copy of letter dated January 9, 2004 from Margaret Watkins, Piscataquog Watershed Association, to New Boston Board of Selectmen, Re: Tax Map/Lot# 3-131, for the Board’s information.
The letter from Margaret Watkins, PWA, to the Board of Selectmen was forwarding a letter of complaint from Dwight Lovejoy that alleged that the Tremblays at 194 Parker Road were dumping waste from their cordwood business and other junk items over their property line onto Town land. Margaret Watkins was requesting that the Board of Selectmen go on the site walk to be held by the Planning Board for the cordwood business.
The Coordinator explained that the site plan submitted by Mike Tremblay had been minor in nature and the Board was familiar enough with the location, that no site walk had been deemed necessary.
Following a brief discussion, the Planning Board determined that the matter was not within their jurisdiction and they would let the Board of Selectmen deal with the matter as they felt was appropriate. Dave Woodbury noted that the Board of Selectmen had not yet discussed the issue but was sure that they would.
10. Read File: Newspaper article regarding Berwick, Maine’s building permits was noted for the Board's information.
11. Read File: Public Hearing Notice for February 5th from the Town of Bow Planning Board, Re: installation of additional panel antennas to an existing communications tower was noted for the Board's information.
12. Read File: Public Hearing Notice for January 20th from the Town of Bow Zoning Board, Re: wireless service facility was noted for the Board's information.
13. Letter dated January 16, 2004 from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, to the Board and Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: bond reduction for CVI Development, for the Board’s action.
The Board reviewed the letter from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., which recommended a reduction in the bond for CVI Development, Inc., Fraser Drive, in accordance with work that had been completed.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the information in Amy Alexander, Dufresne- Henry, Inc.'s letter of 1/16/04 and to reduce the bond for CVI Development, Inc., Fraser Drive, Tax Map/Lot #8/62 & 8/62-1, to $21,540.70. Christopher Johnson seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
14a. Reminders: Deliberative Session, Monday, February 2, 2004, 7:00 p.m., School Gym.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
(snow date 2/3/04)
14b. School Deliberative Session, Wednesday, February 4, 2004, 7:00 p.m., School Gym (snow date 2/5/04)
15. Memorandum dated January 20, 2004 from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, to the Board, Re: future road planning issues, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator noted that she had written her memo of 1/20/04 following a meeting with Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, Greg Begin, Police Chief, and John Riendeau, Road Agent, regarding the McCurdy/Bedford Road subdivisions and Wilson Hill Road subdivisions that the Board had been discussing. She noted that those present at that meeting were able to list what they would like to see for new roads in those areas that would be easy to access and maintain.
The Coordinator also noted that she had met with Rick Matthews, Principal, New Boston Central School, who had designated several school bus stops based on the layout of the proposed new subdivisions before the Board. It was noted that these meetings appeared to have been worthwhile.
16. A letter dated January 16, 2004 from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, to the Board and Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: as-built plans satisfactory for South Hill Commons, was distributed for the Board’s information.
17. A letter dated January 12, 2004 from Jennifer Czyzs, Southern NH Planning Commission, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Hazard Mitigation Plan, was distributed for the Board’s information.
18. An article from Planning, February 2004, on “Court Voids Zoning Changes Because Public Notice is Inadequate”, was distributed for the Board’s information.
19. Read File: Copy of article from Weekly Market Bulletin of January 7, 2004, Re: B.S.E., was noted for the Board's information.
ELLIOTT, HERBERT JR & VERNA ELLIOTT,
ELLIOTT, WILLIAM & SHARON TODD
Submission of Application/ Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: NH Route 136 a/k/a Francestown Road
Tax Map/Lot # 4/17 & 04/20
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present were Bill & Sharon Elliott. Also
ELLIOTT, cont.
present were abutters Donna & Bob Chase, John & Diane Norton, Chris Martin, and William Jacobson.
Bill Elliott submitted a written request for waivers. He explained that the purpose of the plan was to add acreage to Tax Map/Lot #4/20 one purpose of which was to bring an existing well, currently on Tax Map/Lot #4/17, onto the same lot as the house it served, Tax Map/Lot #4/20. He noted that the conservation use of the land would be maintained and the rural natural character of the land in that area would continue.
The Chairman noted that the letter dated 1/19/04 from Bill Elliott was requesting waivers to the fiscal, environmental and traffic impact studies.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to grant the waiver requests as listed in the applicant's letter of 1/19/04. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked if the abutters had any questions. There were none.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application for Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment, N.H. Route 136 a/k/a Francestown Road, Tax Map/Lot #4/17 and 4/20 in the Residential-Agricultural "R-A" District as complete. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked if the Board thought a site walk would be necessary. They did not.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Herbert Jr., & Verna Elliott and William Elliott and Sharon Todd Elliott, for Tax Map/Lot #4/17 & 4/20, N.H. Route 136 a/k/a Francestown Road, such that Parcel A of 8.442 acres is annexed from Tax Map/Lot #4/17 to Tax Map/Lot #4/20, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application, including the cost of recording the mylar at the Registry of Deeds.
4. Submission of a certificate of monuments set based on the plan as presented at this hearing.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be February 29, 2004, confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, requiring no further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice
that that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
ELLIOTT, cont.
Christopher Johnson seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 7:45 p.m., the Board paused until the next hearing at 8:00 p.m.
NISSITISSIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC (APPLICANT)
FREDERICK & CELIA LORDEN, TRUSTEES (OWNER)
Submission of Application/ Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/14 Lots
Location: McCurdy Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/17,18 &19.
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present were Randy Haight, LLS, Morgan Hollis, Esq., Dana Lorden and Dean Glow. Also present were Dave Elliott and Mitch Larochelle.
Randy Haight, LLS, stated that the new road name would be Warren Drive. He noted that driveway permits had been submitted for the lots with frontage on McCurdy Road. He went on to say that following the checklist review he had added Sheet 9 with a cistern detail; made minor corrections to abutters' names and addresses; added a graphic scale to Sheet P1; added setback lines to the 50' strip to Lot #12/18; forwarded a missing sheet of test pit log information; and, updated the overall site development plan. Randy Haight, LLS, noted that State Subdivision Approval had been received.
The Chairman noted that the Fire Wards' recommendation was that this subdivision be sprinklered rather than a cistern being installed. He noted that this would enable the Town's Fire Department to remain volunteer for longer. Dana Lorden asked if there was such a requirement in the Subdivision Regulations. The Chairman explained that the Planning Board asked for the Fire Wards' recommendations and the consensus was that this subdivision needed sprinklers. He noted that the systems required by the Fire Department were not exorbitantly expensive and were tied into the domestic plumbing. Dana Lorden stated he understood the cost to be approximately $7,000 - $8,000 for a 2,400 s.f. home.
Dave Woodbury thought that having sprinklers in a home was a good thing, noting that the recent housefire on Inkberry Road had exhausted the 30,000 gallon cistern and the house was still lost.
Dean Glow stated that sprinkler systems had been mentioned at the site walk but water for the land had also been discussed in terms of having some kind of holding tank for brush fires, etc. He stated that he was not aware that sprinklers were a mandatory requirement and he would have to see the specifications.
The Chairman stated that the applicants should think about which way they would go. He noted that the issue was important to the future of the town in terms of providing services to the community.
The Chairman noted that an environmental impact study had been submitted and asked
NISSITISSIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, cont.
the Board for their thoughts on traffic or fiscal impact studies. Dave Woodbury thought that a traffic study was very important. He noted that other developers in the area were working together to come up with an overall traffic plan that would address the whole neighborhood.
Randy Haight, LLS, stated that the checklist said the studies were "and/or" and he did not think they were mandated. James Nordstrom pointed out that the studies were listed as requirements for a completed application and it was up to the Board to determine which might be needed for each application. He also noted that the items were exception items and the applicant either had to submit a waiver request or the required information. James Nordstrom stated that at this time the Board was in receipt of neither so the application was incomplete.
Randy Haight, LLS, argued that this subdivision, being on the north side of McCurdy Road, should not be considered as part of the ongoing discussion of the land on the other side of McCurdy Road. James Nordstrom stated that for a meaningful analysis of the whole area, the study for this project would have to be considered along with the other subdivisions so the Board could discuss things like road layouts and density of houses and so on.
Randy Haight, LLS, stated that they had no problem with discussing the potential future subdivision of the other land owned by the Lorden family but would like to see this smaller subdivision separated from that discussion. He noted that the applicant would be able to provide a study for the 14 lot subdivision based on traffic counts.
Dana Lorden asked why this discussion was coming up so late in the process and why the Board was even mentioning the subdivision of land on the other side of the street. Dave Woodbury stated that once a car was on McCurdy Road it really did not matter which subdivision it had come from. He did not agree that this 14 lot subdivision had nothing to do with the others in the area. Dana Lorden stated that the land on the south side of McCurdy Road, Lot #12/96, may never be developed and as far as the Board was concerned would never be developed. He stated that the issues were separate and one had nothing to do with the other.
The Chairman stated that the Board had to look at the whole picture. He noted that ultimately the land would be developed and the purpose of the studies was to focus on what areas could best deal with the increased traffic volumes.
Randy Haight, LLS, stated that no survey work had been done on the south side of McCurdy Road. He noted that they could come up with a master plan for future traffic development. He did not think it should be a part of this application or hold up acceptance of this application.
Dana Lorden asked why the Board was discussing this now as opposed to two years ago when they came in. James Nordstrom pointed out that the application had been before the Board only since 2003, noting, however, that the applicant may have been working on it prior to that.
The Chairman pointed out that the final application process allowed for fine tuning of the application. He noted that the Board had to be sure that the subdivision would not overburden town resources and services.
James Nordstrom referred again to the Subdivision Regulation requirements in Section IV-F, regarding a completed application. Randy Haight, LLS, stated again that this process had
never been mentioned until now and that the applicants would have done it already if they had
NISSITISSIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, cont.
known. James Nordstrom noted that most discussion was on environmental impacts.
Dana Lorden stated that he would like the Board to waiver the fiscal impact study if the traffic study was done. Randy Haight, LLS, stated that a waiver request could be denied by the Board and the application could still be considered complete. The Coordinator stated that, in her opinion, the applicant needed either to submit the required information or have a successful waiver request, but a denied waiver request would not help the completeness of the application.
Dave Woodbury asked what a fiscal impact study was designed to show. James Nordstrom explained that it would show the income expected to be generated by the subdivision to the Town and the expenses expected to be created by the subdivision for services to be provided by the Town. The Chairman suggested that a sprinklered subdivision would be less of a fiscal cost to the Town and that was a more valuable resource than a fiscal impact study. He thought that the traffic study was important, but noted that he would be wiling to entertain a waiver to the fiscal impact study if the subdivision was to be sprinklered.
Dean Glow thought that sprinklers were a good idea but questioned what good they were when the power was out. He also noted that homeowners were worried that if one of the sprinkler heads let go the house would be ruined. He stated that he and Dana Lorden would have to discuss the issue and would also try to meet with the Fire Chief to review the matter.
The Chairman noted that he was still willing to send the road plans to Dufresne-Henry, Inc., for their engineering review. He asked for a consensus of the Board regarding the traffic and the fiscal impact studies. The Board's consensus was that the traffic impact study should be required but that they would be willing to waive the fiscal impact study.
The Chairman asked if the driveways were flagged. Randy Haight, LLS, stated that they had been staked for the site walk. The Chairman stated that they should be checked so the Board was certain of what they were looking at when they drove by to view the locations. Randy Haight, LLS, stated that he would call the Planning Department when the stakes were renewed.
The Chairman noted that the plans would be sent to Dufresne-Henry, Inc., for a plan review estimate and then the review, and also for the road construction and bond estimate to be reviewed. He noted that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., would also review the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. He went on to say that language in the Environmental Report should be clarified to refer to all the lots that were the subject of this subdivision, not just #12/19, and to clarify that the Town was not requiring single-family dwellings because that was the applicant's choice. He noted that the zoning permitted one- or two-family dwellings. Randy Haight, LLS, stated that he could make those changes. The Chairman also noted that the report stated that some of
the driveways would be paved. He asked the Board if they thought that this was significant enough to require further study of the drainage from the site. The Board did not.
The Chairman noted that the Board could either deny the application as incomplete or adjourn to a further hearing.
Dean Glow asked when the Board needed their decision on what kind of fire fighting water supply system they would be using. James Nordstrom stated that the applicant had to consider how their plans would have to change. The Chairman noted that if the applicants chose sprinklers the Board would need a written request for waiver to the fiscal impact study.
NISSITISSIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, cont.
James Nordstrom asked how long the traffic study might take to complete. Randy Haight, LLS, thought that if the weather cooperated they would have counters out for a couple of days at the end of the week. The Chairman noted that the finished document should be submitted at least the Friday before the next hearing to allow the Board time to review same.
James Nordstrom noted that the plans had to be reviewed by Dufresne-Henry, Inc. to come up with the actual cost of the review, then the money would have to be escrowed and then the plan review could take place. He noted that may not be accomplished by the next meeting.
Randy Haight, LLS, stated that he would like to try for the next meeting and if it had to be postponed, so be it.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the hearing for Nissitissit Development, LLC, 14 Lots, McCurdy Road, to February 10, 2004, at 8:30 p.m. Christopher Johnson seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Public Hearing on Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance proposed by the Planning Board
SEE SEPARATE COPY OF AMENDMENTS AND PUBLIC NOTICE.
Adjourned from 01/06/04
The Chairman read the public hearing notice for the Zoning Ordinance public hearing. He noted that comment had been received from Town Counsel by letter of January 19, 2004. He further noted that the Board would work down the document entitled "Proposed Amendments
to the Town of New Boston Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for Consideration at the
Ballot Vote of March 9, 2004" dated 1/15/04.
Proposed Amendment #1. ARTICLE III GENERAL PROVISIONS, Section 309 -Location of Driveways.
Dave Woodbury noted that Bill Drescher, Esq., had apparently misunderstood the intent of the Board with this amendment and also noted that it was too late to insert the language suggested by Town Counsel, this being the last public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code amendments.
The Board decided that they would go ahead with the language they had set forth: 'Add a new section 309.1 to read as follows: "Any lot's frontage shall be capable of having a driveway installed thereon."'
Travis Daniels MOVED to propose Amendment #1 as presented at this public hearing for a ballot vote in March. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, cont.
Proposed Amendment #2. ARTICLE IV SPECIAL PROVISIONS, Section 402 Recreational Camping Park Standards.
user-01
Section 402.5 Amend this section to include "interior campground road" in the first sentence, so that the section reads: "No trailer space, tent site, service building, interior campground road or recreational facility shall be located within the specified buffer area. However, the first 100 feet of interior buffer area may be used for underground utilities, providing a plan showing the type and size of the utilities is reviewed and approved by the Planning Board prior to installation."
Town Counsel had no comment on this proposed amendment.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to propose Amendment #2 as presented at this public hearing for a ballot vote in March. Christopher Johnson seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Proposed Amendment #3. ARTICLE VI DEFINITIONS, Section 602 Term Definitions.
Structure: Amend this definition by changing the square footage of buildings considered to be structures from 100 square feet to 200 square feet, so that the section reads: "Anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground, or attached to something having a fixed location on the ground. Structure includes, but is not limited to a building, swimming pool, manufactured home, billboard, or poster panel. It shall not include a minor installation such as a fence six feet or less in height, mail box, flagpole or accessory building of 100 200 square feet or less."
The Coordinator explained that Dennis Sarette, Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Official, had initially suggested changing the size of structures as defined in the Zoning Ordinance from 100 s.f. to 200 s.f. to be in line with the International Building Code. This would mean that a building of less than 200 s.f. would not need a building permit. Dennis Sarette had spoken with George Hildum, Town Assessor, who would prefer to still have 100 s.f. as the minimum in order to track the building construction and assess the buildings promptly for taxes.
The Coordinator noted, therefore, that Dennis Sarette had requested that this proposed amendment not be put on the ballot.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to not propose Amendment #3 for ballot vote in March. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Proposed Amendment #4. ARTICLE VII ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT,
Section 701 Building Permit.
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, cont.
Section 701.1,A Amend this section by replacing the word "other" with the word "accessory" before "structure" and adding the words "200 square feet or more in size." at the end of the sentence, so that the section reads: "The erection or use of any new building, exterior sign or other accessory structure 200 square feet or more in size."
Section 701.1,C Amend this section to include the words "and as amended" at the end of the sentence, so that the section reads: "Any activity requiring permit as described in the 'Building Code for the Town of New Boston, as adopted March 11, 1986' and as amended."
Dave Woodbury MOVED to not propose the first half of Amendment #4, re: Section 701.1,A, regarding structure size for ballot vote in March. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to propose the second half of Amendment #4, re: Section 701.1,C, for ballot vote in March. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Public Hearing on Amendments to the Building Code proposed by the Planning Board
SEE SEPARATE COPY OF AMENDMENTS AND PUBLIC NOTICE.
Adjourned from 01/06/04
The Chairman read the public hearing notice for the Building Code proposed amendments.
Proposed Amendment #1 CHAPTER NB-1.0 GENERAL
Section NB-1.2 Terms
Section NB-1.2.2 Delete this section in its entirety.
Section NB-1.2.3 Delete this section in its entirety.
Section NB-1.5 Adoption
Section NB-1.5.1 Delete this section in its entirety.
Section NB-1.5.2 Delete this section in its entirety.
Section NB-1.5.3 Delete this section in its entirety.
Add a new section NB-1.5.1 to read: "The Town, by this Ordinance, shall adopt the International Residential Code, 2000, as published by the International Code Council, and as amended."
Renumber Section NB-1.5.4 to NB-1.5.2 and add the words "and as amended", so that the section reads: "The Town, by this Ordinance, adopts the 1999 edition of NFPA 13D, Standard
PROPOSED BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS, cont.
for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes, as published by the National Fire Protection Association, and as amended, as the standard that shall apply to all new one- and two-family dwellings and manufactured homes, if the builder or owner wishes to install a sprinkler system (s) in lieu of a required fire fighting water supply."
Section NB-1.5.5 Delete this section in its entirety.
Section NB-1.6 Building Classes
Delete Section NB-1.5.6 in its entirety.
Town Counsel had no comment on this proposed amendment.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to proposed Amendment #1 as presented at this public hearing for ballot vote in March. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Town Counsel had reviewed the entire Building Code and suggested a change to Chapter NB-2.4, Violations. Bill Drescher, Esq., suggested deleting the current section and replacing it with the following language:
"Enforcement of the provisions of this Code shall be pursuant to the provisions of RSA 676:17, and any other appropriate statutory remedy available to the Town. Pursuant to RSA 676:17 (V), the Town hereby designates the Building Inspector as the official with the authority to enforce the provisions of this Code."
The Coordinator stated that she had spoken with Bill Drescher, Esq., about being able to make these changes at the second public hearing on the Building Code Amendments. Bill Drescher, Esq., stated that the language as currently included in the Building Code was incorrect and because the intent of the section was not changed by his suggestion, merely the language was brought in line with current statutes, the Board should make the change.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to delete Chapter NB-2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, and 2.4.3a) from the Building Code and replace it with Bill Drescher, Esq.'s suggested language and to propose the amendment for ballot vote in March. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Town Counsel next suggested language to replace existing Chapter NB-2.5, Right of Appeal, as follows:
"A building code board of appeals is hereby created which shall consist of five members which shall be appointed by the Selectmen. The Selectmen may also appoint up to five alternates as provided in RSA 673:6. The qualifications for such members shall be consistent with RSA 676:3 and once constituted, the building code board of appeals shall exercise the
PROPOSED BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS, cont.
authority provided for in RSA 674:34, and any other applicable statute. The terms of the members of the building code board of appeals shall be for a period of three (3) years and shall be staggered as required by RSA 673:5,II. The Selectmen, upon making the initial appointments shall appoint members in a manner that insures that no more than 2 appointments occur annually in the case of a 5 member board, except when required to fill vacancies. Appeals may be had to and from the building code board of appeals in the manner provided by applicable statutes. The building code board of appeals shall, within ninety days of its original appointment, pursuant to RSA 676:1, adopt rules of procedure governing the manner of conducting its business and may include in the subject matter of such rules matters
that may be necessary to provide for an appeal process, to the extent not inconsistent with applicable statutes."
Bill Drescher, Esq., again suggested this language to bring the Town's building code in to line with state statutory requirements and to reflect that statutory language.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to delete Chapter NB-2.5, and replace it with the suggested language from Bill Drescher, Esq., and to propose the amendment for ballot vote in March. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Board returned to the proposed amendments as noticed.
Proposed Amendment #2. CHAPTER NB-2.0 ADMINISTRATIVE, Section NB-2.6.2 Tests
Delete Section NB-2.6.2 in its entirety.
Town Counsel had no comment on this proposed amendment.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to propose Amendment #2 as presented at this hearing for ballot vote in March. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Proposed Amendment #3. CHAPTER NB-3.0 DEFINITIONS
Delete the definitions of BOCA and CABO.
Town Counsel had no comment on this proposed amendment.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to proposed Amendment #3 as presented at this hearing for ballot vote in March. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Proposed Amendment #4. CHAPTER NB-4.0 AMENDMENTS
PROPOSED BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS, cont.
Delete Chapter NB-4.0 in its entirety.
Town Counsel had no comment on this proposed amendment.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to propose Amendment #4 as presented at this hearing for ballot vote in March. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Proposed Amendment #5. CHAPTER NB-5.0 Smoke Alarms
Renumber this chapter from NB-5.0 to NB-4.0.
Replace the words "outside of each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms" with "in each bedroom" in the first sentence, so that the sentence reads: "Smoke detectors shall be installed outside of each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms in each bedroom and on each additional story of the dwelling, including basements, cellars and unfinished spaces, but not including crawl spaces and uninhabitable attics."
Town Counsel had no comment on this proposed amendment.
James Nordstrom MOVED to propose Amendment #5 as presented at this hearing for ballot vote in March. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Proposed Amendment #6. CHAPTER NB-6.0 Sprinkler Systems for new One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes
Renumber this chapter from NB-6.0 to NB-5.0.
Town Counsel had no comment on this proposed amendment.
Travis Daniels MOVED to proposed Amendment #6 as presented at this hearing for ballot vote in March. Christopher Johnson seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 9:25 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Nicola Strong
Planning Coordinator Minutes approved:
| 
