Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 04/13/04
At 6:53p.m., James Nordstrom opened discussion on the elections of Board Officers for the upcoming year.  Present were James Nordstrom, Christopher Johnson, Travis Daniels and ex-officio Christine Quirk.  Also present were Planning Coordinator Nicola Strong and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.

James Nordstrom MOVED to elect Peter Hogan as acting and continuing Chairman for the Planning Board.  Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

James Nordstrom MOVED to elect Travis Daniels as Secretary for the Planning Board.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

James Nordstrom indicated his willingness to assume the position of Vice-Chairman.  There being no dissent, James Nordstrom became Vice-Chairman.
        
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Peter Hogan who arrived at the end of the elections.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, were Brandy Mitroff, Todd Connors, PE, Mike Dahlberg, LLS, Paul Sizemore, Mark Moser, PE, Christine Quirk, Pat Monbouquette, Diane Corricelli, Joe Segien, Maralyn Wiley, Steve April, Rob Camaan, Barbara Stewart, Tom Noel, Debbie and David Jewers, Bob Todd, LLS, Jacqui Fillmore, David Ely, Tony Cantin, Wayne Charrest and John King.
CLARK HILL REALTY, LLC                          Adjourned from 02/24/04
Work Session/Design Review
Non-Residential Site Plan Review/Multi-Family Development
Location:  Clark Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #8/118
Residential One “R-1” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Todd Connors, PE, and Steve April and Rob Camaan of Clark Hill Realty, LLC.  Also present were abutters Joe Segien and Maralyn Wiley.
        Todd Connors, PE, of Sublime Civil Consultants, represented the applicant.  Mr. Connors, PE, wished to review changes made to the site plan and also submitted a letter from the applicants’ attorney that outlined items relative to condominium issues, as it was not yet clear if this multi-family development would be apartments or condominiums.
        Mr. Connors, PE, stated he submitted a revised site plan to the Planning Board office in the week prior which addressed the checklist review made by the Planning Coordinator.  He stated that some interesting changes were alterations to the proposed building’s architecture made by a newly hired designer to the project.  Mr. Connors, PE, noted that there were no significant changes made to the square footage or overall shape of the proposed building.  He noted that there would be three bedroom units on either end and two bedroom units in the interior section with appropriately sized septic systems.  
CLARK HILL REALTY, LLC, cont.

        Todd Connors, PE, stated he had made notations to the site plan for sprinklers and alarm panels which were requested by the Fire Wards, yet still sought clarification on the size of the cistern the Fire Wards wanted for the development.  An earlier memo to Mr. Connors, PE, from the Fire Wards requested a 10,000 gallon cistern while a more recent memo requested a 15,000 gallon cistern.  At present, the plan had a 12,000 gallon cistern as an average of the two sizes in question, and the size could certainly be changed based on what the Fire Wards decided.
        Todd Connors, PE, staed that the driveway layout regarding grading and drainage had not changed.
He stated that the location of a postal station had not yet been decided and the entrance to the proposed road was a possibility, but needed clarification from the Post Office.  The Post Office had provided a standard design requirement for the postal station in the meantime.
Todd Connors, PE, next noted that a recreational area included a level grass area and a jungle gym for residents.
        He next noted that the Fire Wards requested a separation in the center of the proposed structure for better emergency access.  Mr. Connors, PE, sought clarification from the Board as to whether this separation was allowed.  James Nordstrom thought the building had to be one unit.  The Coordinator offered that if this was a need for the fire department and it was allowed per zoning, then the Planning Board could consider it.
        Residential lighting was proposed at each driveway’s entrance to aid residents as they approached their units.  Abutter Joe Segien expressed concern over these lights shining into the front of his house.  Mr. Connor, PE, replied that the lighting would most likely be a lantern type fixture with subtle downcast lighting and nothing comparable to a bright street lamp.        
        Todd Connors, PE, wanted the Board’s opinion on landscape requirements for the development, and noted that regulations did not require landscaping for multi-family classifications.  The Chairman replied that landscaping for areas that were visible to passers-by was probably warranted and that tenants could decide on personal preference around their units.
        Mr. Connors, PE, stated that an entrance sign with the proposed property’s name and address would probably be added to the site plans, and noted that the Zoning Ordinance allowed a sign that measured four feet.  The Coordinator added that the sign or a reference to this ordinance would need to be included on the next set of submitted plans.  Travis Daniels added it would be nice to see a sketch of the sign and Mr. Connors, PE, stated he would have a sketch added to the plans.
        Regarding the deed overlap areas on Old Coach Road, Mr. Connors, PE, stated he had a conflict with identified ownership up to Old Coach Road in that it differed with Bob Todd, LLS’s information which showed a strip of land that was actually owned by the Town.  Mr.
Connors, PE, stated that he would speak with the Town Administrator and planned to approach the Selectman to inquire about deeding.
        Condominium issues were discussed in a letter by the project’s attorney, Andrew Sullivan, which Mr. Connors, PE, submitted to the Board.  The letter explained that the proposed 12 unit multi-family building could be apartments with a single owner, or a better fit might be to classify it as condominiums with a condominium association.  Mr. Connors, PE, stated that the
CLARK HILL REALTY, LLC, cont.

question had arisen as to how to handle this application due to a “no further subdivision” stipulation on a previous subdivision plan.  Mr. Connors, PE, asked the Board’s opinion and said he would like the Board to get Town Counsel’s opinion as well.  He went on to add that if the classification was changed from “apartment” to “condominium”, the plan’s layout was unaffected and it would still be considered a single parcel with no need to have the frontage extended.  Mr. Connors, PE, added that each condominium unit would draw its own tax bill and the land around the proposed building would be considered common land.  Mr. Connors, PE, pointed out that Attorney Sullivan’s letter referenced specific ordinances, statutes and case law that validated these points, however Mr. Connors, PE, still wanted the Planning Board’s guidance on how to proceed.
        The Chairman stated that he had no preference on the apartment/condominium classification and that Andrew Sullivan, Esq’s., letter should be forwarded to Bill Drescher, Esq., for his opinion.  The Chairman added that he thought a condominium might be a better choice over having renters in apartments.  Mr. Connors, PE, agreed and stated that condominium owners tended to reside longer, took better care of the property and generated more tax base.
        Christine Quirk asked if they would have approval from the Attorney General to build the project as condominiums.  Mr. Connors, PE, replied that Andrew Sullivan, Esq., had stated that anything over 10 units would require Attorney General approval. Mr. Connors, PE, added that  this was advantageous to the project as the State guarded against issues such as unfinished projects, over funding and bad loans.
        Abutter Joe Segien again expressed his concern over the lighting plans for the proposed building and asked if the development’s sign would also be lit.  Mr. Connors, PE, said it would not be lit, and again, stressed that the individual driveway lighting would be low profile and characteristic, with lantern posts at a height of approximately eight feet, that supplied just enough light to guide a resident into their driveway, especially since this driveway would be wider than the typical twelve foot wide driveways of single homes.  Joe Segien asked about the electrical plans.  Mr. Connors, PE, replied they were planned to be underground and separately metered.  Joe Segien asked if there would be a junction box and, if so, where would it be located.  Mr. Connors, PE, stated that they would probably be such a box and that he was not sure of the location but thought it might be placed at the top of the road with power then run underground to the dwelling units.  Mr. Connors, PE, added he was not sure of the exact lighting that would be used but that it would not be any brighter than the type of light that was on the front of a house and it would certainly not be bright like a street lamp, but would use progressive optics that reflected down to the ground.  The Chairman offered the comparison to the development of Bedford Manors which had lights that were just bright enough to pinpoint the road entrance.
        The Chairman then asked if the mail boxes were to be located at the road entrance as well with lights.  Mr. Connors, PE, replied that they would be.  The Chairman commented that this postal station would have some challenges to make it attractive.  Todd Conners, PE, offered that  the post boxes could be in a building with some kind of pitched roof and a clapboard sided wall facing the road.  From the audience, Steve April responded that landscaping could be added.  The Chairman said the construction options were many, and the postal station could be built very
CLARK HILL REALTY, LLC, cont.

attractively, possibly doubling as a school bus stop.  He added that if this station was not given proper design attention that it could be a downfall to the plan.  Mr. Connors, PE, agreed, stating that this building would be a first impression of the neighborhood.
        James Nordstrom asked if trash would be provided by a dumpster or internal storage.  Mr. Connors, PE, said it would most likely be a dumpster located away from the development which would alleviate resident trips to the transfer station.  The Chairman asked if Mr. Connors, PE, was aware that general trash was no longer accepted at the transfer station and the costs to have a company haul non-separated trash had recently increased.  Steve April added this fact would motivate condominium owners to recycle.  The Chairman noted that it would more likely be an issue for the condominium association and that he simply wanted to bring it to their attention.  Mr. Connors, PE, was not aware of this fact and offered that two dumpsters could be installed on the site.
        Joe Segien asked if an environmentalist had been contacted regarding the extensive tree cutting done by the prior owner of the property.  Steve April replied that they had filed a complaint with the State Forester naming this involved person.  Joe Segien understood that there was a limit to how many trees could be cut to the border of the property.  He stated that there were now no trees and asked if the developers would plant new ones and possibly add fencing.  Steve April said that after the existing house on this property was torn down they would have the option to replant.  Todd Connors, PE, added they would have certain areas re-planted, while avoiding wetlands. Because of limited planting options near wetland areas, forestry and landscape architects would also be consulted.  He stated that this would be added to the landscaping plan he would be preparing.
        Christopher Johnson asked how far back the proposed building was from the road.  Mr. Connors, PE, said it was 750 to 800 feet from the road, far more than the required 100 foot setback required from wetland areas.  James Nordstrom corrected this setback length as a required 150 feet.
        The Chairman asked if there were any other questions or comments.  The Coordinator had since located and now offered the definition of a multi-family residence building which was “ A single residential building designed for, or occupied by, three or more families.”.  Mr. Connors, PE, stated that he would approach the Fire Wards with this information as it pertained to their request to split the building for emergency access and, given this definition, the building needed to remain as a single unit.  Christopher Johnson wondered if this requirement meant that the building had to flow as one continuous unit, or might it have a middle breezeway-type section with a roof over it.  Mr. Connors, PE, said he would check with the Building Inspector and the Fire Wards on how this divided section request could be fulfilled.
        Joe Segien asked what was planned for wells at the development.  Mr. Connors, PE, stated that there was to be a single well which would be classified as a public water supply and not a community water supply, but would still require DES approval .
        Mr. Connors, PE, asked the Board if it was inappropriate for the involved attorneys to contact each other directly regarding issues for this plan.  The Chairman stated that
correspondence from the attorneys needed to go through the Planning Board as it was considered
CLARK HILL REALTY, LLC, cont.

privileged information.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the Work Session/Design Review for Clark Hill  Realty, LLC, Non-Residential Site Plan Review/Multi-Family Development, Location:       Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/118 to May 11, 2004, at 7:00 p.m.  Christopher  Johnson seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

13-15 HOPKINS ROAD, INC (APPLICANT)             Adjourned from 02/24/04
SWIEZYNSKI, JOSEPH (OWNER)                      
Work Session/Design Review
Major Subdivision/9 Lots
Location: Salisbury & Hopkins Roads
Tax Map/Lot #13/15
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, who represented the applicant.  An abutter present was Jacqui Fillmore.
          Bob Todd, LLS, stated that since the last work session with the Board, the site walk had been done and he had submitted the road bond estimate, warranty deeds for Salisbury Road and Harding Lane and slope and drainage easements.  Mr. Todd, LLS, added that he had received confirmation on the completion of the traffic study which he should have in ten days.  Mr. Todd, LLS, noted that a SWPPP plan still needed to be done and, with that, did not have much more additional information.
        Mr. Todd, LLS, asked if the Board thought it was too early to have the application sent to the Selectmen to discuss the upgrade to Salisbury Road so that his client could have financing and contractors prepared if necessary.  He noted that the applicant wanted to know if he or the Town would be responsible for the proposed road construction.  James Nordstrom thought this request was premature as the upgrade plans were not yet known and asked the Coordinator’s opinion.  The Coordinator wondered if the applicant was committed to putting in a new road given that extensive land moving was required to do so and that also included shaving a knoll from Salisbury Road.  She added that if more back lots were put into the plan that a road might not be needed.  Mr. Todd, LLS, replied that he had originally proposed back lots to his client and the client declined the idea, saying that he did not want to lose a lot as a result, and did not think the new road would be too expensive.  James Nordstrom asked who decided what upgrades to a road were warranted.  The Coordinator replied that the decision was made by the Road Agent
and the Selectmen.  James Nordstrom added that given that information, maybe a recommendation to the Selectmen was not premature.  
        The Coordinator asked if the applicant was certain he wanted duplexes built.  Mr. Todd, LLS, replied that he was.  The Coordinator asked if it was possible to do some clustering with duplexes and also build some single family homes.  Mr. Todd, LLS, did not think clustered duplexes would be attractive and the Coordinator noted that if the unit sizes were altered this
HOPKINS ROAD, INC., cont.

might look better.  Mr. Todd, LLS, stated that his client might consider that option, but he did not feel that the duplex scenario would be avoided.  Mr. Todd, LLS, thought that having varied architectures was a good idea.  The Coordinator reiterated that as the plan stood, it had the potential to be a very visually large development.  Christopher Johnson stated that a large duplex near his home did not seem too unattractive.  He noted that he thought the market would determine what got built.  The Chairman stated that he thought the duplex plan seemed inappropriate for the surrounding area.  
        The Chairman asked what information would be given to the Selectman for their consideration.  Mr. Todd, LLS, replied that the improvements should be to Class V standards.  
        The Chairman asked if any abutters were present.  Abutter Jacqui Fillmore stated that she was not aware that the proposed structures were duplexes.  She agreed that duplexes seemed uncharacteristic for the area and also favored an architectural mix, yet realized zoning allowed for the proposed duplex scheme.  
        The Chairman asked if there were any other questions or comments.  There being none, he asked what information and direction should be sent to the Selectmen.  The Coordinator offered that she could send a memo to the Selectmen that reviewed the road improvement issue.    
        The Coordinator then asked the Board if they wished to discuss phasing this plan as nine duplexes meant 18 units.  Christopher Johnson remarked that phasing might also be dictated by the market. Travis Daniels asked if the duplexes would be developer owned or owner occupied.  Mr. Todd, LLS, was unsure at present.  The Chairman thought that phasing should be considered and Mr. Todd, LLS, said he would ask the owner about this.  
        The Chairman asked if there were any other questions or comments.  Mr. Todd, LLS, stated that he would provide answers and responses to questioned posed to him tonight in memo form for the plan file.  He added that the applicant wanted to know if he should contact the Selectmen directly after the information from the Board was sent to the Selectmen.   The Chairman replied yes.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the Work Session/Design Review for Hopkins     Road, Inc., Major Subdivision/ 9 Lots, Location: Salisbury and Hopkins Roads, Tax       Map/Lot #13/15, to May 11, 2004, at 7:30 p.m.  Christopher Johnson seconded the         motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        There being time before the next scheduled hearing, the Board took up Miscellaneous Business.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL  13, 2004

1.      Approval of minutes of January 6, 2004, January 20, 2004, February 10, 2004, and February 24, 2004, with or without changes. (Distributed at the March 23rd meeting)

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

        James Nordstrom noted the following corrections to the minutes:

        -Minutes of January 6, 2004: Page 2, lines 7/8, “inspections” should be “inspector”
        -Minutes of January 20, 2004: Paragraph #2, sentence #2, should read “…Board was
       familiar…”

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of January 6, 2004, January 20, 2004, February 10, 2004 and February 24, 2004, as written or with noted corrections.  Christopher Johnson seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

2.      The minutes of November 12, 2002, were distributed for approval at the meeting of April 27, 2004, with or without changes.

3.      Application for appointment received April 07, 2004, for the Board’s review and  discussion.

                With the Chairman’s approval, the Coordinator stated that she would schedule Don Duhaime to appear before the Board on April 27, 2004 at 6:45 p.m.

4.      Driveway Permit Application for Seff Enterprises & Holdings, 3 Foxberry Drive, Tax      Map/Lot #8/84, for proposed driveway, for the Board’s action. (Board to drive by prior  to meeting)
        
        The Coordinator explained that at the time of the plan’s approval, the Board wanted grade requirements of 10% or less for the driveways and lot sketches would have to be submitted with each driveway permit.  She asked if the plan attached to this permit was sufficient.  The Chairman thought that a more detailed plan was needed in order to establish the grade and he saw no scale on the current plans.  The Chairman asked if Board members had differing opinions.  James Nordstrom believed the plan sketch was drawn to scale and measured the distance between the contours which showed a two to thirty foot rise.  He added that the grade appeared to be less than 10%, yet questioned the constructability.  
        The Coordinator stated there was no seal on the plans and wondered if this was an issue.  The Chairman asked if driveway plans required a seal.    
        James Nordstrom stated that the drawing showed that the driveway construction was doable but he still questioned its feasibility.  He went on to ask how the Town dictated what could be done on a single subdivided lot and was the builder required to construct exactly what they designed to do.  The Chairman suggested there should be a level of provability.  The
Coordinator remarked that there was a note on the plan that said the sketches should be submitted at the time of the permit and the driveways would be in accordance with subdivision regulations.  James Nordstrom commented that he had walked this site and thought that the substantial amount of ledge on the lot could be an access issue and that it may need to be stated
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

that the proposed house be built as depicted (i.e. if the proposed house position was changed then the plans would need to be reviewed again).
        The Chairman asked if the site was flagged.  James Nordstrom replied that a riser was flagged with approximate markers but this was at the base of a vertical ledge face.
         The Chairman asked when driveway permits were approved.  The Coordinator responded that it was done at the time of Certificate of Occupancy and this viewing was prior to the final walk-through.  She added that this driveway permit was needed to begin construction.  The Chairman noted that the plan should be referred to as designed and without variations.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application 04-017,
Vista Road LLC, Tax Map/Lot# 6/40-5, for proposed driveway, with the Standard   Planning Board Requirements:  the driveway shall have two inches (2”) of  winter binder         (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft)       from the centerline of the road; the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by     curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the driveway shall intersect with the road      at an angle of 60-90 degrees.  Also as part of this driveway application, the plans     attached, dated 9/27/02, which depicts the driveway location, grading, and house location         is approved.  Any significant deviation in the field shall require resubmittal to the   Planning Board.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.   

SIZEMORE, MARILYN & RONALD (OWNERS)
SIZEMORE, PAUL (APPLICANT)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR Amend & Expand Existing Gravel Display/Sales for existing Truck &Auto Repair Business.
Location: NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/29-1
Commercial “Com” District
        
        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Mike Dahlberg, LLS, and Paul Sizemore.  No abutters were present.
        Mike Dahlberg, LLS, explained that this site plan was revised per the Planning Board’s request due to increased business activity on the site.  The plans now separated Lot #5/29-1 from Lot #5/29, a commercial parcel which had an existing 2,400 square foot building.  Mr. Dahlberg, LLS, located areas on the plan that were currently used for equipment and vehicle repair and sales.  The applicant wanted three new areas developed that would expand his storage and display areas.  The first area was located south of the existing building close to Route 77.  The
second area was a proposed driveway east of the existing building that rose to an upper plateau with the driveway having a maximum 10% grade.  The third area was for parking and display, located north of and adjacent to the existing building.
        Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the plan indicated associated drainage and culvert
SIZEMORE, cont.

locations along with lighting and signage.  He had received and addressed checklist corrections from the Coordinator and had submitted them to the Planning Board office April 12, 2004.  Mr.
Dahlberg, LLS, noted that the vicinity sketch which showed the existing Lots and zoning districts was mistakenly not included.  The cover sheet and existing conditions plan requested by the Coordinator was supplied.  Mr. Dahlberg, LLS, stated that a Dredge and Fill Permit was not required as no wetlands would be impacted.  He also stated that the existing building size and number of employees were not increasing.
        The Chairman stated the outstanding fees needed to be addressed first.  Paul Sizemore replied that he thought the fees were too high given the fact that he had shown good faith and fulfilled the Board’s request to redevelop the site plan.  The Chairman responded that the Board could have decided to refer the site plan to the Building Inspector who could have imposed a fine for the applicant’s lack of compliance with his existing site plan.  Paul Sizemore replied that he intended to pay the fee and had simply questioned the amount.  The Chairman asked if the Board or the Coordinator had any further comments on this issue and there were none.   
        The Chairman asked how parking areas would be arranged and what was represented in the three new areas to the plan.  Paul Sizemore replied that the proposed area which abutted Route 77 was for merchandise display, while the two remaining proposed areas were slated for vehicle and equipment storage.  The Chairman asked if changes were made to the areas on either side of the current driveway and the upper left area of the driveway.   Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that usage in those areas had been approved on the prior plan and that appropriate buffers were now added which required the owner’s compliance if these proposed plans were approved.  The Chairman stated that previous approvals needed to be included on the current plans so that a full picture of the new site was given, especially since this new plan evolved from an abutter’s complaint.  
        The Chairman asked if there were any further questions.  James Nordstrom noted a few areas of proposed contour lines that appeared to cross over the 25 foot buffer lines.  Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that this could be corrected with the addition of a radius curve.       James Nordstrom asked how steep the proposed driveway was and Mr. Dahlberg, LLS, replied that it had a maximum 10% grade.  The Chairman asked if this driveway led to a storage area.  Paul Sizemore said equipment vehicles, trailers and machinery would be stored at that location.  The Chairman asked if customers would have access to that area.  Paul Sizemore replied they would not.  The Chairman then asked what prevented public access to that area and Mike Dahlberg, LLS, answered that a “No Entry/Employees Only” sign would be installed.
        The Coordinator asked for a description of the current and proposed lighting for the areas on the plan.  Paul Sizemore stated that there was staggered lighting at each corner of the existing building that operated automatically.  Mike Dahlberg, LLS, pointed out additional lighting added to the plan but stated he had not yet clarified these additions with the applicant.  Paul Sizemore
felt that this additional lighting could promote theft over security and preferred to omit them if the Board approved.  Mike Dahlberg, LLS, said he added these lights with the option of their removal versus not including them and having to add them on a future submittal.  The Chairman asked if the lights could remain on the plan with optional status.  The Coordinator stated all items
SIZEMORE, cont.

on a submitted plan needed to be installed to meet compliance.  The Chairman thought that as long as the lights were noted as optional there would not be a compliance issue.  Paul Sizemore asked if the proposed lights required automatic or manual operation.  The Chairman replied that whatever type of light was chosen needed to be noted that way on the plan.  Travis Daniels asked if Paul Sizemore had ever experienced theft at this location.  Paul Sizemore said he had many times.  Travis Daniels asked Paul Sizemore what his lighting preference was.  Paul Sizemore replied he would rather note the added lights as optional if possible.  Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that he did not think abutters located uphill from the location would be affected if lights were added, as the location’s grade was well below the abutters’ property grades.  The Coordinator asked what kind of lights would be installed.   Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated the lights were detailed on sheet #3 of the plans as downcast lighting.  
        James Nordstrom asked if Paul Sizemore had customers who arrived close to his closing hour of 9:00 p.m.  Paul Sizemore said later times were by appointment only and did not occur too often.  The Chairman thought that the lighting for the storage areas and not the sales display areas was the discussion topic.  James Nordstrom added that items for sale might be located in the storage are as well.  Mike Dahlberg, LLS, questioned if the plans should detail optional sales displays in the storage areas.  Paul Sizemore stated he did not want formal displays in the storage areas but that he sometimes had items that were being prepared for display and temporarily located there.  The Chairman stated that if an area on the plan was labeled as display, then appropriate lighting was required, therefore, the wording on the plans may need to be changed.  Mike Dahlberg, LLS, asked if this meant the wording on the area in questions should simply read “storage”.  The Chairman agreed, adding that it was not considered out of the realm of business to have items for sale in a storage area, especially if work was not completed on these items, but customers still wanted to see them.  He added that because storage lighting differed from sales display lighting, appropriate lights should be noted on the plans to the storage area for compliance.  The Chairman added that the lights could be operated in the storage areas at the applicant’s discretion.
         The Chairman asked if there were any other questions before the application should be deemed complete and there were none.  The Chairman added that a site walk was necessary and the outstanding fees needed to be paid beforehand.  The site walk was scheduled for April 17, 2004, at approximately 9:30 a.m.

        Travis Daniels MOVED to adjourn the Submission of Application/Public Hearing,   NRSPR Amend and Expand Existing Gravel Display/Sales for Existing Truck and Auto        Repair Business, Location: NH Route 77 aka Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/29-1, to May      11, 2004, at 8:00 p.m.  James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED       unanimously.

        The Board returned to Miscellaneous Business.

8.      Daily road inspection reports dated March 1st, March 2nd, March 3rd, March 4th, March
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
        5th, March 8th, March 9th, March 11th,  from Dufresne-Henry, Re: Waldorf Estates Phase  III, for the Board’s information.
9.      Daily road inspection reports dated March 2nd, March 3rd, March 4th, March 8th, March   9th, March 11th, from Dufresne-Henry, Re: Highland Hills, for the Board’s information.
10.             A copy of a letter dated March 25, 2004, from Linda Ray Wilson, New Hampshire   Division of Historic Resources, to Jason M. Roback, ATC Associates, Inc, Re: Proposed   Telecommunications Collocation, 281 Wilson Hill Road, New Boston, NH, was       distributed for the Board’s information.
        
        The Chairman asked if there were any current concerns with this and the Coordinator replied there were none.

11.             A copy of an article from NH Town and City, April 2004, issue, Re: Citizen Attitudes    about preserving open space, for the Board’s information.

R. & A. FREEMAN & M. NADOLNY, TRUSTEES
FREEMAN IRREVOCABLE TRUST
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Minor Subdivision/2 lots
Location: 240 Riverdale Road
Tax Map/Lot# 3/54
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Mike Dahlberg, LLS, who represented the applicant.  Abutters present were Barbara Stewart and Tom Noel and Tony Cantin.
        Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that this 15 acre lot had an existing house that would remain on 5 acres and the proposal was to construct a house on the remaining 10 acres that paralleled the placement of the existing house.  The proposed driveway ran off of Riverdale Road and was opposite the driveway on Lot 3/36.  The proposed driveway transversed an existing slope and curved around to the top of the hill.  
        Mr. Dahlberg, LLS, stated a driveway plan and driveway permit application had been submitted and that appropriate changes were noted and addressed per the Coordinators checklist corrections on this plan.  Mr. Dahlberg, LLS, noted that a question was posed by the Coordinator that involved the need for a culvert to be located at the end of the proposed driveway.  Mr. Dahlberg, LLS, wanted the Road Agent’s opinion on this culvert item before he revised it on the plans.
        Mr. Dahlberg added that Site Specific, Wetlands and State Subdivision Approval were not required for this plan, however, work on the culvert at the end of the proposed driveway would be done if the Road Agent deemed it necessary.  
        The Chairman asked if building restrictions were imposed.  Mr. Dahlberg, LLS, replied that wetlands divided the Lot in half and began one quarter of the 1,528 depth from the road,
R. & A.  FREEMAN & M. NADOLNY, cont.

therefore, the building area was naturally quite confined.  The Chairman asked if Mr. Dahlberg, LLS, would add a note that said no further subdivisions would take place on this Lot.  Mr. Dahlberg, LLS, replied that was not a problem and an appropriate adjustment would be made to Note #9 on the plans.  Abutter Barbara Stewart asked if the latter stipulation would be a covenant to the subdivision. The Chairman replied that it would be.
        James Nordstrom commented that the driveway plan seemed challenging.  Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the driveway plan was feasible and showed a back grade of 2% at the bottom, followed by a transitional curve for 100 feet which then inclined up to a 10% grade.  He added that the soil was compatible for this plan.
        The Chairman asked if the Driveway Permit was received and the Coordinator stated it was submitted. The Chairman then asked about the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Mr. Dahlberg, LLS, stated that information was included as part of the driveway plan.  After some discussion, waivers on the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies were requested orally by Mr. Dahlberg, LLS, who was also instructed to follow up the requests in writing.  Abutter Barbara Stewart asked if these waivers related to the Lot or the driveway.  The Chairman answered they were related to the Lot and further noted that only one new building lot was proposed which had no traffic or fiscal impacts.  The Chairman also said this single build would not pose environmental impacts either because the ability to subdivide further had been waived by the applicant.  The Chairman asked if the Board had any conflicting opinions on this and there were none.  
        
        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the verbal waiver request for Fiscal, Traffic and       Environmental Impact Study requirements to be followed up with a written waiver         request.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

       James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of R. & A. Freeman and M.       Nadolny, Trustees, Freeman Irrevocable Trust, Submission of Application/Public  Hearing/Minor Subdivision/2 Lots, Location: 240 Riverdale Road, Tax Map/Lot#    3/54,   as complete.  Christopher Johnson seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        The Chairman asked if the plan had any outstanding corrections.  The Coordinator replied revisions were submitted to the Planning Department but had not yet been reviewed.
        The Chairman asked if the proposed driveway required a guard rail.  The Coordinator said it did require one because the grade was 10% and the side slopes were significant.  The Chairman asked if the case was the same if the slope was reduced to 9%.  The Coordinator said the presence of the side slopes dictated the need for a guard rail.  The Chairman asked
Mr. Dahlberg, LLS, if he was aware the proposed driveway required a guard rail and Mr. Dahlberg, LLS, said he was not and asked if there was room for negotiation between the Planning Board, Road Agent and engineers as to the type of rail installed, for example a boulder barrier instead of a wooden guard rail.  James Nordstrom wondered what the Board could  regulate on a private lot and he added that if other design methods were acceptable by safety
R. & A.  FREEMAN & M. NADOLNY, cont.

standards (i.e. load prevention on the slope) he was in agreement.  The Chairman noted that if the rail was a boulder barrier it needed to be a substantial one and Mike Dahlberg, LLS, agreed.
        The Chairman asked if there were any other issues that needed discussion.  The Coordinator said a site walk was needed to view the proposed driveway location which was scheduled for May 1, 2004, at 8:30 a.m.  
        Abutter Tom Noel questioned what the triple flagged stake represented, located near abutter Barbara Stewart’s land and thought it might be a property dividing line.  This stake, he added, did not seem to be a dividing measure based on the location of the proposed driveway’s centerline marker.  Mr. Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the triple flagged stake marked the 200 foot frontage to the new lot and was not the dividing line.

        Travis Daniels MOVED to adjourn R. & A. Freeman and M. Nadolny, Trustees,       Freeman Irrevocable Trust, Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Minor       Subdivision/2 Lots, Location: 240 Riverdale Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/54, to May 11, 2004,   at 8:30 p.m.  James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        At 8:50 p.m., the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.  Christine Quirk recused herself from the Board as her hearing was scheduled next.

QUIRK, THOMAS & CHRISTINE                       Adjourned from 02/24/04
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/Ten Tent Sites
Location: Cochran Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/11
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Mark Moser, PE, and Christine Quirk.  Abutters and interested parties present were Pat Monbouquette, Diane Corricelli, David Ely and Debbie and David Jewers.
        The Chairman stated for the record that although the applicants had been granted a variance by the ZBA which allowed the campground’s proposed road to be located in the buffer zone, an abutter had submitted a letter requesting a rehearing to the ZBA on April 9, 2004, which could negate tonight’s discussion.
        Mark Moser, PE, stated that they reviewed and corrected the following items on the site plan based on the Coordinator’s checklist:

ü       An abutter was added to the site plan
ü       Existing structures on the site within 200’ were not labeled as such as they were actually outside of that range
ü       No landscaping and screening was proposed for the site
ü       No exterior lighting was proposed for the ten tent sites subdivision plan.
QUIRK, THOMAS & CHRISTINE, cont.

ü       A north point arrow was added to the site location map
ü       One tickmark was added to bearings and distances
ü       Administrative Class V classification was added to Cochran Hill Road
ü       Topographic contours, watercourses, wetlands and ponds were provided in sheets #1-8 and included driveway locations
ü       Standard Planning Board Note #2 was added to the site plan
ü       Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plans was originally provided
        The Coordinator’s checklist stated the above item was missing and Mr. Moser, PE, asked for the Planning Board’s clarification.
        The Chairman wished to determine if the application was complete and asked the Coordinator about the missing Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plans.  The Coordinator replied that Subdivision Regulation Section V-V stated that site plans required either minor or major sets of detail and that the Board needed to decide which was preferred for this plan.  Mr. Moser, PE, wanted to show the Board exactly where this information was located and stated it was provided between the drainage report and sheets #1-8.
        James Nordstrom asked for discussion on the road profile.  Mr. Moser, PE, stated that a three or four foot fill was required at the base of the road, followed by boulders and boulder retaining walls which led up to a 10% grade section that had some cuts implemented.  
        Mr. Moser, PE, reviewed the erosion plans, and stated that cutting the upper part of the road brought drainage into road side ditches on either side of the road and eventually to a fill section at the bottom.  In addition a culvert was added that carried drainage between the two sides.          Regarding temporary sediment control, Mr. Moser, PE, said there were silt fences and stone check dams in the ditch lines which were every 40 to 50 feet.  Permanent treatment consisted of a grass swale at a culvert outlet before discharge reached the wetlands.  Mr. Moser, PE, added that these were standard methods for treatment for a simple road plan.
        Mr. Moser, PE, said that two narrative sections were required and were in the notes, one which described temporary and permanent controls and a second that discussed disturbed areas and timing.  Additionally, construction erosion and control details that described the temporary and permanent controls were included on sheet #8 and the drainage report described the treatment swale along with some additional information.
        Mr. Moser, PE, believed all required information was represented and James Nordstrom thought that although the information was dispersed throughout the report and plans and not contained in a compact location, it fulfilled the requirements of Section V-V.
         The Chairman stated that the Board needed to act on the waiver requests for print copies of soils map, Site Specific and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies.  Mr. Moser, PE,
acknowledged that a map had been provided that depicted jurisdictional wetlands outlined by a wetland scientist, but that this waiver was for Site Specific Soil Mapping.
        James Nordstrom asked what the SCS maps showed for this area and Mr. Moser, PE, replied it was Group A, Canton, a well-drained soil that had less than 1 CFS, therefore, low flows were probable.
        James Nordstrom stated he did not have any issues with granting these waivers.
QUIRK, THOMAS & CHRISTINE, cont.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waivers requested for the application of Thomas      and Christine Quirk, Major Subdivision/Ten Tent Sites, Location: Cochran Hill Road,     Tax Map/Lot #7/11, particularly the requirement for three copies of soils map, Traffic,         Fiscal, and Environmental Impact Studies.  Christopher Johnson seconded the motion and  it PASSED unanimously.
        
        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Thomas and Christine Quirk,  Major Subdivision/Ten Tent Sites, Location: Cochran Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/11, as    complete.  Christopher Johnson seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        The Chairman stated that he had no issue with the waiver request to showing monumentation for the ten tent sites and asked if the Board felt the same.  James Nordstrom inquired about existing sites that had this condition.  Mr. Moser, PE, stated that waiver requests for the same were granted two years prior for 50 sites at the campground.
 
        James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waiver request for the application   of Thomas and   Christine Quirk, Major Subdivision/Ten Tent Sites, Location: Cochran Hill Road, Tax     Map/Lot #7/11, relative to monumentation for the sites.  Christopher Johnson    seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        The Chairman asked why the proposed driveways were on the site plan but not on the subdivision plan.  Mr. Moser, PE, responded that he thought the driveways relative only to the site plan as it dealt with boundary lines.  James Nordstrom noted that New Boston Subdivision Regulations required the driveways to be shown graphically on both plans.  Mr. Moser, PE, replied that this would be corrected and added to the subdivision plan.
        The Chairman stated that the Subdivision Regulations called for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control plan to be reviewed by Dufresne-Henry, Inc.  Mr. Moser, PE, replied that this was the Board’s discretion.
        Abutter Diane Corricelli asked for clarification between the terms “driveway” and “road” to the campsites.  The Chairman replied that because each campsite was considered a subdivision, it was technically correct to state that each campsite had a driveway even though it was only wide enough for a car to be parked.  The Coordinator added the branches off of the  road were the “driveways” being discussed and not the road to the tent sites.
        The Chairman asked what in the plan needed to be reviewed by Dufresne-Henry, Inc.  James Nordstrom thought the plan’s design was straightforward in road design and driveways and saw no drainage concerns.  He saw no need for Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s review and Travis Daniels agreed.
        Diane Corricelli asked how water was treated and filtered as it flowed down the main access road towards the eventual culvert outlet to the wetlands on the plan, since her own leach field had required attention being located near surrounding wetlands.  The Chairman replied that because this gravel road was once a logging road and very short in length it did not need to be
QUIRK, THOMAS & CHRISTINE, cont.

reviewed in as much detail as a newly constructed road would.  Diane Corricelli asked if this road would be paved.  The Chairman said it would not be paved and that no roads were paved in the campground which was a very wooded area.  The Chairman added that the campsite driveways were only wide enough for one car and were dead ended.  He added that the existing logging road had been upgraded to a “flat gravel surface” road.  
        Abutter Pat Monbouquette asked if this logging road was Old Stage Coach Road.  The Chairman stated that it was not and that this road was located on the other side of the campground.  Christine Quirk added that this road was not anywhere near Old Stage Coach Road and also abutted the Town forest.  The Chairman offered that he believed the applicant’s variance was granted by the ZBA only because the buffer area abutted the Town forest and not residential property.
          Diane Corricelli thought that the campsite’s expansion toward the Town forest was still an environmental concern.  The Chairman explained that this application had already been in process before the vote on the proposed amendment that prohibited roads in the buffer areas occurred, and that the ZBA had granted relief to the Quirks based on that timing technicality.  Therefore, the Chairman felt that this expansion into the buffer area was legal.
        Diane Corricelli questioned the purpose of the Town warrant at voting time.  The Chairman replied the purpose was for zoning regulations to be clarified in order that such regulations were appropriately referenced by the Planning Board in the future.  Diane Corricelli thought that if the application missed the timing of the vote then that decision should stand.  The Chairman noted that arbitrating issues such as this was one of functions of the ZBA.  Diane Corricelli added that her questions were only attempts to understanding this confusing issue.
        The Chairman then asked if the Board agreed that Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s input was not needed on the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and the Board gave consensus.  The Chairman added that it appeared all erosion control plan measures had been followed.  The Chairman asked Mr. Moser, PE, what permanent control measures were in place.  Mr. Moser, PE, stated there was a treatment swale at the culvert prior to discharge.  The Chairman said that control measures would be inspected on the compliance site walk.        The Chairman asked if any master sketches of proposed future expansion existed.  Christine Quirk replied there were none and that they simply explored dry areas as they presented themselves.  
        Abutter David Ely asked what percentage of the lot could be built out according to current zoning regulations.  The Chairman replied that development was constricted by the need for dry areas. Christine Quirk added that they made diligent attempts to avoid expansion toward
abutters even though she had every right to build out the entire area if desired.  David Ely added his intent was not to offend the applicant as they provided a great service in the campground, especially to those who lived there during the winter months.  Christine Quirk vehemently stressed that no one lived at the campground and that winter campers were only allowed three night stays from November to April.  She added that winter campers were allowed usage of sites Friday through Sunday and that winter months saw a maximum of 20 people on the weekends.
        David Ely agreed the campground was very quiet in the winter but noisy in the summer months.  Christine Quirk replied that campground security enforced quiet after 11:00 p.m.  David
QUIRK, THOMAS & CHRISTINE, cont.

Ely replied this was successfully enforced but that his main concern was how much more noise would be generated if the applicants eventually built out to their maximum potential. The Chairman said Mr. Ely should be assured that if campsites were proposed to abut a residential lot, no grant would be given by the ZBA to put roads in the buffer.  The Chairman added that no campsites were allowed within 200 feet of the setback either.  Diane Corricelli stressed that there was a certain level of noise in the summer months.  The Chairman noted that there were levels of noise in all locations and that he could plainly hear conversations his neighbors had from their yards that were the same distance away as the abutters were from the campground.  Christine Quirk remarked that they had owned the campground for 25 years, long before any homes were constructed near that area and had always been respectful of the neighbors.  The Chairman told Diane Corricelli he knew of no solution to her noise issues.  Abutter Debbie Jewers concluded that she was still uneasy regarding the noise issue and felt the timing of the vote brought her concerns to the forefront but accepted the explanation as to why locating sites in the buffers adjacent to the Town forest was approved.  
        The Chairman stated that this application had now been in process for one year and at its inception, the Board had questioned the legality of a road in the 200 foot buffer zone.  The Chairman added that this question was referred, at that time, to the Town Attorney who deemed it legal.  The Chairman went on to add that at the time of changes to the ballot for voting, the Board remembered this issue and wanted better clarification on zoning regulations such as this.  The Chairman further added that at the same time as the zoning changes, the applicants moved forward on the section of their application that regarded a utility building they wished to have finished before the summer season and waited to address the buffer zone item so that the entire application was not delayed.  The Chairman said that by the time the zoning issues were drafted and petitioned, the applicants’ plan was inadvertently considered non-current and they were forced to reapply.  The Chairman stated that the application technically had to be denied by the Planning Board and the applicant’s only recourse was to approach the ZBA for relief.  The Chairman stressed that the applicants were not trying to go against the vote in their desire for this approval to their plan as their application existed long before this issue was proposed for the ballot.
        Diane Corricelli asked if a similar situation could ever occur again.  The Chairman stated that the ZBA retained descriptive and clear paperwork on this case, should it need to be referenced for future situations.  Diane Corricelli returned to the fact that the town warrant vote
said “no” to roads in buffer areas and that she had missed opportunities due to bad timing so why should this case differ.  The Chairman replied that this was why the ZBA became involved.
        The Chairman stated that the final waiver was for submission of digital plat data.  The Chairman asked if a waiver or simply a consensus was needed as this subdivision did not create lots of record.  The Coordinator replied that because this was a major subdivision regulation, plat data needed to be submitted as a technicality but that in this instance, information would not appear on the tax maps as they were sites, not lots.  James Nordstrom summarized that the intent of this submission was invalid and a waiver request was needed.  The Chairman stated the
applicants could submit a verbal request followed up in writing.  Mr. Moser, PE, verbally
QUIRK, THOMAS & CHRISTINE, cont.

requested the waiver for submission of digital plat data with a follow up in writing.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the waiver request relative to the filing requirement   of digital plat data for the application of Thomas and Christine Quirk, Major   Subdivision/Ten Tent Sites, Location: Cochran Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/11.     Christopher Johnson seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
 
        The Chairman stated that another meeting was needed and asked the Coordinator what requirements remained outstanding.  Mr. Moser, PE, also questioned what items remained.  
The Coordinator replied that the toilet building location was an outstanding issue and referenced note #7 on site plan sheet #2 which said that campsites would have on-site portable toilets.  The Coordinator thought this note contradicted Mark Moser, PE’s, letter dated June 10, 2003, that requested use of a service building that was greater than 500 feet from the sites.  In addition, the Coordinator noted that Zoning Ordinance regulations required that every campsite be located within 500 feet of a flush-type toilet and that if sites were beyond 500 feet, the Planning Board could not act on the waiver because it was in zoning.
        The Coordinator stated she also referred back to the notes at the last approval which said that all sites in that subdivision were within the required 500 feet of the toilet building, but portable toilets would also be provided as added convenience for people at the campsite.  The issue was that for this subdivision there was no service building within the 500 foot range.  Christine Quirk stated that one of the ten tent sites was within this range and the others were not but were very close and the new toilet building was equipped with more showers and toilet facilities than the old building had.  Christine Quirk added that at the Planning Board hearing on November 27, 2001, the Chairman confirmed that by adding chemical toilets the Zoning Ordinance would be satisfied, and thought the same would apply to this item.  The Coordinator added that at that hearing it was stated that all sites were within the 500 foot range.  Christine Quirk disagreed and thought it very clear at that time that only some sites were within the 500 foot range.  The Chairman said he remembered discussion on the measures of the sites.  The Coordinator replied that the minutes were clear and stated all sites were within range.
        James Nordstrom asked if this issue would remain after the new toilet building was completed.  Christine Quirk replied that the new building was located where the old building stood. James Nordstrom asked if the building could be moved.  Christine Quirk replied this new
toilet building was almost finished.  The Chairman asked if the toilets were required to be flush-type.  James Nordstrom said there were.  The Chairman asked if chemical toilets flushed.  The Coordinator stated that while requirements might be met, procedurally, this requirement could not be waived by the Board because it was in the Zoning Ordinance.
        Christine Quirk asked Mr. Moser, PE, to point out sites within the 500 foot range.  Mr. Moser, PE, stated that site #10 was located closest to the new toilet building under construction.  The Chairman asked if the remaining sites were within range and Mr. Moser, PE, said they were not but were very close.  
        Christine Quirk said flushable toilets could be supplied if it meant the issue could be
QUIRK, THOMAS & CHRISTINE, cont.

resolved.  Christopher Johnson asked if the word “building” implied a permanent structure.  James Nordstrom responded this was again, an issue of interpretation.
        Christine Quirk stated that portable toilets were approved for a 70 section site and those toilets were within 500 feet of those tent sites.  James Nordstrom replied that those portable toilets were approved as supplements to the toilet building.
        The Chairman said the issue dealt with Zoning Ordinance Section 402.10 that stated flush-type toilets be provided within 500 feet of the tent sites.  The Coordinator added that this ordinance noted the flush-type toilets were to be placed in a building not more than 500 feet from any camping space nor less than 25 feet away from any camping space.  The Coordinator agreed with James Nordstrom that they were coming to interpretation issues again and thought the Code Enforcement Officer’s opinion was required.
         From the audience, Brandy Mitroff asked what information would be referred to the Code Enforcement Officer and would the substitution of chemical flush-type toilets be mentioned.  James Nordstrom replied he wanted clarification on Zoning Ordinance Section 402.10, Paragraph A, and what the requirements were relative to the context of the application, and relative to the requirement that a chemical toilet be used in place of a permanent service building that was greater than 500 feet from the tent site.  Brandy Mitroff wanted to confirm that James Nordstrom wished to specifically mention chemical toilets, otherwise the point of the question to the Code Enforcement Officer was moot.  James Nordstrom replied that the request could be re-worded to ask if the requirements of the section could be fulfilled by another means other than a permanent building facility.  James Nordstrom asked the Coordinator her thoughts on the phrasing.  The Coordinator replied she would draft a memo coupled with Mr. Moser, PE’s, request letter that asked for a service building greater than 500 feet from the site, and requested clarification on Section 402.10 and how it fit into this application.  James Nordstrom agreed with the Coordinator’s thoughts.
        Mr. Moser, PE, thought the applicant deserved flexibility with this issue, given that it appeared the Zoning Ordinance’s intent was that adequate facilities were provided to the public.  James Nordstrom stated that Zoning Ordinance regulations must be adhered to. Mr. Moser, PE,
thought it was the Board’s responsibility to use their judgment on matters such as this.  The Coordinator stated again that the Planning Board was not allowed to waive Zoning Ordinance regulations and that this matter required interpretation.  James Nordstrom replied that it would jeopardize the integrity of the Zoning Ordinance if the Board acted on such a waiver.
        The Chairman thought an easier solution to this matter was to construct another small building that satisfied the distance requirements.  Christine Quirk stated there were related cost concerns with that idea.  Diane Corricelli commented that portable toilets were not conducive to bringing children inside with their parents as they were small and cramped.  The Chairman agreed, but said he had not suggested outhouses but something more acceptable and added that he agreed that the Code Enforcement Officer’s input was needed.

        Travis Daniels MOVED to adjourn Thomas and Christine Quirk, Submission of       Application/Public Hearing, Major Subdivision/Ten Tent Sites, Location: Cochran Hill
QUIRK, THOMAS & CHRISTINE, cont.

        Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/11, to May 11, 2004, at 9:00 p.m.  Christopher Johnson seconded    the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        Christine Quirk returned to her seat on the Planning Board.

JOHN KING
This will be an informational session to discuss the need for subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #13-50, South Hill, Chamberlain & McCollum Roads.

        Mr. King stated he was in the process of purchasing this land from Gardner and Nora Page and a question arose as to whether this land was a Lot of record.  Mr. King contacted Bob Todd, LLS, who researched the deed and said it was indeed a Lot of Record.  Mr. King also retained Will Sullivan, Esq., who sent a letter to the Coordinator to forward to Bill Drescher, Esq., for his opinion.  Mr. King said he was told to proceed with the Planning Board first on this matter, and he did not want to advance on purchasing the lot prematurely.
        The Chairman asked if Mr. King had confirmed this was a Lot of Record.  Mr. King replied yes, and according to the deed when originally purchased, it was referred to as three tracts of land, although it was now only listed as Lot #50 and Lot #51.  He added that two tracts of land on one side of the road were joined as they were small.  
        The Chairman asked the Coordinator what information she had on this item.  The Coordinator replied that a question was raised by Marie Stanger because of South Hill Road which divided this property.  She stated that there were no subdivision files because the deeds went back to at least 1928.  She added that in 1978 the Tax Maps showed these Lots owned by the Pages and with the same lot numbers and different sub lot numbers.  The Coordinator said the “Z” which joined the two lots was puzzling and stayed on the maps until sometime between 1998 and 2001 and was then removed.  She added that Mr. King’s attorney said the deed described the land as three separate tracts with the third tract labeled as 13-50 and in his opinion met the definition for a Lot of Record.
        The Coordinator said this was another case, which the Board had seen in the past, of lots that were split by roads and that in the Town’s tax rolls up to 1978, the land was described as one piece of land, but in 1979 when the DRA did the revaluations, it was described as two pieces of land and curiously, had slightly different acreage than before.  The Coordinator noted that the
Board might recall that these 1979 revaluations had caused some problems in the past.
         The Coordinator said that information pulled from the HCRD website on deeds said the tracts were purchased by Grace Walls in 1928 as tracts 1 &2 and a third tract was purchased by Grace Walls in 1933.  All three tracts were transferred to Mr. Blake who transferred them to himself and presumably his wife, and finally all three tracts were transferred to the Pages.  The Coordinator noted Lot 13-50 was vacant, and an existing house was on Lot 13-51.  In addition the Coordinator supplied the Board with copies from “A Hard Road to Travel” and some other resources that regarded lots on two sides of a road.  The Coordinator stated she had summarized this into three questions:
KING, JOHN, cont.
        
1)      Did separate tract descriptions in the deeds mean separate lots?
2)      What do the deed descriptions refer to relative to today’s tax maps?
3)      Are Lots 13-50 and 13-51 legally separate lots and if so, can they be sold separately, or do they need to be subdivided?
        
        The Coordinator said the first and third questions were of a legal nature and the second question required some local knowledge as the names on the deeds were quite old.
        John King was of the opinion that three tracts of land meant the land was now three lots.  He could not see how they would have been joined unless by a motion to join them.
        The Chairman made reference to the Palmer case where the final outcome was to do whatever the party preferred because the history of the deed was less important than what the present potential of the land could offer.  The Coordinator noted that it was important to view these issues on a case by case basis because the outcome did matter in the Palmer case, as the land was deemed separate for separate uses, with one lot deemed non-conforming.  The Chairman noted that the meaning of his comment was more a question of what should be done with strange cases like this rather than do nothing.  
        The Chairman asked Mr. King if he wanted the lots to be separate and Mr. King replied that he did.  The Chairman added that if the lots were not separate, a road that divided them did not make them so.  The Chairman asked what the acreage was on Lot 13-51 and Mr. King thought it was slightly less than two acres.  The Chairman replied that meant it was not a buildable lot.  Mr. King stated that the existing house was on this lot.  
        The Chairman asked if Mr. King was trying to buy the other lot (Lot #13-50) and he said he was.  The Chairman wanted to know the exact acreage of Lot 13-51.  Mr. King said he believed it was 1.5 or 1.25 acres.  The Chairman asked if there were any utilities on Lot 13-50 for the benefit of 13-51.  Mr. King said there were not as the lots were separated by South Hill Road.  The Chairman replied the road seperation was irrelevant and he had seen examples of
utilities for lot benefits across roads.  Mr. King stated the existing house on Lot #13-51 had a new well on its property, so did not believe there was any issue.
        The Chairman stated that the Board would be unable to grant subdivision on the land if needed as Lot #13-51 was non-conforming, unless the ZBA could assist.  The Chairman asked what criteria was necessary to decide if the lots were separate.  Mr. King offered the lots’
separate taxings as a point.  The Chairman said that separate taxing was not uncommon.  James Nordstrom thought that the Board should seek Bill Drescher, Esq.’s, opinion and use Mr. King’s supplied legal opinion as a forward.  James Nordstrom said if Bill Drescher, Esq., agreed the lots were separate he would be satisfied.
         James Nordstrom asked if resolutions in the Palmer case became the outline for future and similar issues such as this.  He added that in his opinion, Mr. King had a separate lot but recalled two other situations when Town Counsel became involved in the decision.  
        James Nordstrom asked who was responsible for the Town Attorney’s fee to review this item.  The Coordinator stated that the Town usually covered fees for these issues as tax records and roads were involved.
KING, JOHN, cont.

        The Chairman told Mr. King they would forward information for Bill Drescher, Esq.’s, review and if the answer came back negative, then the Planning Board would try to resolve this issue.  The Chairman added Mr. King would be notified when the Board had an answer.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

5.      Letter dated April 4, 2004, from Bill Drescher, Esq., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Vista Road LLC, Tax Map/Lot# 6/40-5, 14 Lot Subdivision, for the Board’s review and discussion.

        The Chairman stated that it appeared that bonding was needed and asked the Coordinator if this letter was released to the affected parties.  The Coordinator stated the letter could not be released without the Board’s approval and approval was given by consensus of the Board.

6.      Letter dated April 6, 2004, from Morgan Hollis, Esq., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Waldorf Estates Phase III, Foxberry Drive, Tax Map/Lot #8/84, for the Board’s review and discussion.

                The Coordinator explained that the Town Engineer had questioned the number of acres that were open on site.  Amy Alexander mentioned this question to Joe Foistner and told him it was a condition of Site Specific.  Joe Foistner replied that condition did not apply to him, so Amy Alexander contacted DES for clarification.  DES replied that the 5 acres included road and lot development, anything that caused erosion during construction.  DES went to the site to look and at a recent meeting the Coordinator had with the attorney, engineers and Dufresne-Henry, Inc., the State’s report said there were no problems.  The Coordinator was then surprised to get this letter which stated that the erosion and sediment controls were unsatisfactory and it also included a long list of items that needed to be rectified.
        The Chairman wondered if the DES was active in that area on April 1, 2004, when the rain was heavy as he had visited the site and noted how clean the detention areas were.  The Coordinator did not know if DES had been up there around that time but knew that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had made ongoing comments that erosion controls needed to be maintained.

7.      Update on Community Profile, for the Board’s review and discussion. (No copies)
        The Coordinator stated that attendance was better than anticipated with over 200 people.  Saturday’s attendance numbered 140 +/-, again better than expected.  The groups came up with 24 project goals that needed to be condensed into 6 by voting.  The primary goal voted for was to update the master plan and a committee was formed.  A follow-up meeting for the profile was scheduled for April 14, 2004, and the Coordinator said it was important to move forward with this and not delay the process even though the Master Plan update will not be started until the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission’s fiscal year rolls over in July.
        The Coordinator felt it important to mention at this meeting that the whole reason for
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

original profile was to update the Master Plan. 
        Travis Daniels was perplexed that people had certain negative comments about the Planning Board but did not know much about the Board’s meeting times, etc.   He added, that overall, the general mood was upbeat and positive.

12.     The distribution of minutes of March 23, 2004, were distributed for approval at the     meeting of April 27, 2004, with or without changes.
13.     Schedule a compliance site walk for Kristi and Paul Citak, Hair Salon business, 45      Woodbury Road, Tax Map/lot #2/47.
        The Compliance site walk was scheduled for May 1, 2004 at approximately 9:15 a.m.
14.     A copy of a letter dated April 13, 2004, to James Nordstrom, Planning Board, from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, Re:  Planning Board appointment, was distributed for the Board’s information.
15.     Read File:  Public Hearing Notice for April 21, 2004 from the City of Concord Planning Board, Re:  proposed wireless services facility.
16.     FYI- The site walk scheduled for Inkberry Road today (April 13, 2004) was canceled by Bill Rossignol due to rain.  The site walk was rescheduled for Friday April 16, 2004, at 1:00 p.m.
        The Coordinator thought that Bill Rossignol would want to see rain effects at this site and Bill Rossignol stated that as it was going to rain heavily the effects would still be evident on Friday.  She added that Lot #45 was still an issue with Bill Rossignol.  Travis Daniels asked who was attending. The Coordinator said herself, John Riendeau, Brian Holt and Bill Rossignol would be at the Friday site walk.
17.     Selectmen Meeting, Monday, May 3, 2004.
        The Coordinator stated that Burton Reynolds asked that Planning Board members attend this meeting to discuss the Coordinator’s maternity leave.  The Coordinator would let the Board know what time the meeting would be held.

        At 10:50p.m., Travis Daniels MOVED to adjourn.  Christopher Johnson seconded the        motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk                                                      Minutes Approved:  May 11, 2004 as amended