Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 10/12/04
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON                                             
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of 2004 Meetings

October 12, 2004


The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Vice Chairman James Nordstrom.  Present were regular members Travis Daniels, Bob Furey; alternate Don Duhaime and ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom.  Also present were Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown, and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.  Chairman, Peter Hogan was detained and arrived at approximately 8:00 p.m.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Kim Burkhamer, Willard Dodge, Bob Todd, LLS, Paula Bellemore, Ray Shea, LLS, Peter Beers, Chris Beers, Tom Welch, Cary Preble, Earney Mayo, Reverend Woodland, Louise LeClair, Lynn Lombard, Dona Fairbairn and Brandy Mitroff.  
 
Public input session on the draft of Steep Slopes Conservation District Ordinance

        The Vice Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and some members of the Steep Slopes Committee, which included Kim Burkhamer, Willard Dodge and Paula Bellemore.  Kim Burkhamer stated that comments from the prior meeting with the Planning Board along with additional comments from Bob Todd, LLS, had been integrated into the draft of the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  She noted that a change suggested by Mr. Todd, LLS, was to further clarify the slope percentage breakdowns in Section B, District Boundaries, from “…slopes of 15-25% and 25% and greater…” to “…equal to or greater than 15% up to 25% and 25% & greater…”.  Kim Burkhamer stated that the Committee had agreed to this change.  She added that the next comment concerned Section E, Page 3, where 1.5 acres of contiguous flatland on a five-acre backlot was not properly clarified for lot size determinations.  Kim Burkhamer stated that she was still waiting for consideration of the Committee concerning this inclusion and its phrasing.  She stated that Bob Todd, LLS’s next comment was that the mapping standard for steep slopes district should be done by ground or aerial survey and with contour intervals no greater than five feet.  James Nordstrom explained that the Town accepted at the subdivision level, either on-ground topography or aerial mapping.  He added that he was not sure if it was necessary to specify either survey method but did think it was important to have a topographic plan with contour intervals of five feet or less that was certified by a licensed land surveyor within the state of New Hampshire.  Brandy Mitroff asked by what other means such mapping could be accomplished.  James Nordstrom replied that mapping could also be done through interpolations or USGS.  Brandy Mitroff thought the gist of Bob Todd, LLS’s suggestion was that accurate representations of mapping standards were made to avoid conflicts in the future.  James Nordstrom stated that he felt professional certification was warranted on mappings although that may be inappropriate in some cases.  Brandy Mitroff noted that a scenario to be avoided was the case of plans certified by a Licensed Land Surveyor whose ground survey information was later found to be inaccurate.  James Nordstrom agreed and thought that in such cases some course of action should be taken and that similar scenarios had occurred in other towns.  Brandy Mitroff asked if James Nordstrom thought there was a downside to adding wording for aerial or ground surveying to the mapping standards.  James Nordstrom replied that he did not, however, he felt that in certain cases aerial topography did not offer an accurate depiction of what was on the ground.  He added that air photos were taken in different seasons of the year and some were good while others were not, therefore, his personal
Steep Slopes Conservation District Ordinance draft, cont.

choice would be for on-ground surveys only, which he knew was an unrealistic proposal.  James Nordstrom stressed that the final language should call for certification of a Licensed Land Surveyor.
        Bob Furey asked the accuracy of USGS regarding contour intervals.  Bob Todd, LLS,
Replied the margin of error was +/- half of a contour, which could result in unsatisfactory information.  He added that his wish was that the Steep Slopes Ordinance would address this issue by keeping that method of mapping out of the standard while accepting aerial and/or on-ground surveys.  Bob Todd, LLS, noted that in some instances USGS was acceptable as it could highlight general land forms on large lots or be used for forest management plans but he did not think it was an appropriate tool for steep slopes.  Willard Dodge stated that if the Committee was trying to be more specific with the steep slopes clarification then the method of mapping should also be more specific.  
        Kim Burkhamer asked if an additional paragraph should be included for mapping standards.  James Nordstrom thought the mapping standards should be listed before Incorrectly Designated Zones.  Kim Burkhamer stated she could make the insertion between Section B, District Boundaries and Section C, Incorrectly Designated Zones.  Bob Todd, LLS, suggested the mapping standards could be Item #1 of Incorrectly Designated Zones with the other items following after.  James Nordstrom reiterated that the language should also include that contour intervals should not exceed five feet and the source of mapping was either aerial or on-ground with the certification of a Licensed Land Surveyor.  Kim Burkhamer noted that language was referenced in Incorrectly Designated Zones and its phrasing could be repeated for the mapping standards.
        James Nordstrom asked if there were any comments from the Board or the audience.  Mike Dahlberg stated that he thought USGS was useful for planning but on-ground surveys were more appropriate for steep slopes.  Brandy Mitroff asked if the choice of surveying for plans should be the Planning Board’s discretion based on the type of site plan proposed, i.e. a 20 lot subdivision versus a barn with a home business.  James Nordstrom suggested the mapping standard could quote either choice with incorrectly designated areas using on-ground only, and if questions arose from aerial topography, an on-ground survey could then be required by the applicant.  Brandy Mitroff thought a statement should be made in the mapping standards section that confirmed USGS was not an acceptable standard to avoid future argument.  Gordon Carlstrom thought this was a very good point and Kim Burkhamer agreed.
        Kim Burkhamer stated that Section F, Item #6 now read: “Grading should minimize disturbance to the natural land form not create conditions that result in land slides, flooding, erosion or the creation of a water course where one did not previously exist on any adjacent property.”  She added that Item #9a of the same section now included a similar phrasing under Storm Water Management and Sediment Control Plan which read: “No new drainage ways or water courses shall be created nor additional run off directed to adjacent properties unless necessary easements are obtained.”
        Kim Burkhamer stated that in Section G, Exemptions, Bill Drescher, Esq., had advised the removal of the phrase “…and lots created by subdivision prior to adoption of this
Steep Slopes Conservation District Ordinance draft, cont.

Ordinance.” as a lot of record stood as a lot of record.  She noted he also suggested a reference to RSA 676:12 as well.
        Kim Burkhamer stated she would incorporate changes and forward the next draft to Bill Drescher, Esq., prior to the next public hearing scheduled for October 26, 2004.

NEW ERA CF TRUST                                                Adjourned from 09/14/04   
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Lull Road
Tax Map/Lot #3/9
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Vice Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Mike Dahlberg who represented the applicant.  No abutters were present.  
        Mike Dahlberg stated that he could not locate the mailing with the sprinkler statement, therefore, it was not yet on the final plan.  He added that Note #9 included the statement that no further subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #3/9-3 would occur, however, he believed the applicant misunderstood that the deed for that lot would also need to include that language along with the scenic easement and sprinkler language.  Mike Dahlberg asked for the Board’s consideration to require such a rewritten deed as a condition of the approval.  He believed there were no other outstanding issues with the plan based on the prior meeting and site walk with members of the Board.         
        James Nordstrom asked if the waivers granted by the Board at the prior meeting were noted on the plan.  Mike Dahlberg replied they were not and that he would make that adjustment.
        Don Duhaime asked if there would be a cistern requirement for this plan where the proposed lot was the fifth lot built from the subdivision.  Mike Dahlberg replied that the prior lots in the subdivision were covered by a cistern and the proposed lot was not but would be covered by sprinklers.  He added that if the applicant chose to further subdivide on portions of Lull Road in the future he would most likely be required to install another cistern or at least sprinkler systems.
        James Nordstrom asked the future potential of the applicant’s remaining parcel.  Mike Dahlberg replied that the applicant still had 120 acres available but did not believe much more subdivision would occur that the applicant could view from his existing house on the parent lot.
        Gordon Carlstrom stated that a condition of approval should be that appropriate documentation was provided that stated prior lots of the subdivision including the parent lot were covered by a cistern and were within the approved truck travel distance, thus fulfilling the requirement, so that sprinklers may be added on the fifth lot.  James Nordstrom noted that the plan to be recorded should contain a note stating any further subdivision would require a means of fire fighting water supply.
        Gordon Carlstrom asked if the scenic easement language needed to be added to the plan.  Mike Dahlberg replied that it was on the plan, however, a second document would need to be
forwarded to Town Counsel for review which incorporated the easement language into the deed
NEW ERA CF TRUST, cont.
        
for Lot #3.
        Mike Dahlberg noted that a formerly subdivided Lot #3/9-1, was a conservation lot that
would never be built on but was still within the required distance to the cistern.  Gordon Carlstrom explained that this lot was still considered a lot of record, which factored into the fire protection equation.

        Bob Furey MOVED to approve to approve the Major Subdivision application of New  Era CF Trust, Tax Map/Lot #3/9, Lull Road 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.   Approval of the language of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions regarding
       the installation of sprinkler systems in each house in the subdivision and deed        
      language that would incorporate that requirement, by Town Counsel, the cost of            which shall be borne by the applicant. Documentation that the pre-existing 4 lots are   within 2,200 feet travel truck distance to the closest existing cistern that the 5th lot        will have the installation of a sprinkler system and any future lots in this subdivision
        will be serviced by a approved fire fighting water supply.              
4.   Submission of executed Declaration of Covenants and Restriction regarding sprinkler    
         systems. The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
        5.   Approval of language of the Warranty Deed that will include the scenic easement    
             language for no further subdivision and reference to the Declaration of Covenants, by   
            Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
               6.   Submission of executed Warranty Deed regarding conditions noted in #5.
        7.   Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent
           8.   Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be                            signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
                9.   Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application, including the
              cost of recording documents at the HCRD.
        The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be December 12,    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 the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the   approval.    
 
        CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
        1.  Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New     
                Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwelling in
NEW ERA CF TRUST, cont.
        
                the approved subdivision.      Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED                        unanimously.    
        
BEERS, PETER                                                    Adjourned from 9/14/04  
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Laurel Lane & Mason Drive
Tax Map/Lot #15/8
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Ray Shea, LLS, Peter Beers, Chris Beers and a friend.  No abutters were present.
        Ray Shea, LLS, reviewed the proposal as a two lot subdivision on a 15 acre parcel located on the corner of Mason Drive (a private drive) and Laurel Lane and on the north side of the New Boston Tracking Station.  He added that a site walk was held with members of the Board and the lot corners for the site had been properly placed.  The Chairman asked if any questions arose from the site walk.  James Nordstrom stated that the proposed driveway for the lot was in close proximity to wetlands but there was more than adequate space for its construction.  James Nordstrom further noted that provisions for erosion control were part of the site plan.  The Chairman stated that the attendants of the site walk were Bob Furey, James Nordstrom, Michele Brown, Ray Shea, LLS, Chris Beers and his girlfriend, Jen.  Bob Furey noted that the plan proposed two thirty inch storm drain pipes on the site and wondered if they could also service the private roadway once the project was complete.  Peter Beers mentioned that the measurement was actually 24 inches.  Ray Shea, LLS, stated that the pipes could service the roadway but that traffic was more likely to come from the direction of Laurel Lane.  James Nordstrom clarified that the future landowners would exit the lot and travel to the west.  Ray Shea, LLS, concurred.
        The Planning Board Assistant stated that the driveway locations and waivers should be added to the plan to be recorded.  Ray Shea, LLS, said he would do so.  The Chairman asked if the applicant had a Driveway Permit and the Planning Board Assistant replied that he did.  The Chairman asked if the house on the lot would have a sprinkler system installed.  Chris Beers replied that he did not wish to do so as the structure was to be a log home and sprinklers could saturate the wood.  He asked if he was required to install sprinklers.  The Chairman replied that he was not.  
        Gordon Carlstrom asked why the plan was considered a major subdivision.  The Planning Board Assistant replied that because there was the potential for further subdivision of the property the plan carried a “Major” classification.  Chris Beers disagreed and noted there was not enough frontage on the Class VI road to have an additional two-acre lot subdivided behind the existing house on the parcel.  He therefore felt the plan should be re-qualified as a minor subdivision.  The Planning Board Assistant stated that because backlots could still be subdivided from the parcel and the plan qualified as a major subdivision.  The Chairman asked if major subdivisions were required to have sprinkler systems installed on the lots.  James Nordstrom
BEERS, cont.

replied that the Subdivision Regulations required fire fighting water supply for the potential of five lots.  Ray Shea, LLS, asked if that requirement inferred the potential of a fifth lot or after the fifth lot was subdivided.  James Nordstrom replied that the requirement could be considered either way.  Gordon Carlstrom explained that it became the applicant’s choice whether to wait until the fifth lot and then provide coverage for the first four or address the matter with the onset of the subdivision construction.  He noted a similar situation that had occurred on South Hill Road where the applicant chose to put a note on the plans that stated there would be no further subdivision of the parcel so as to avoid that issue entirely.  
        Ray Shea, LLS, stated that he understood the reasoning behind the major subdivision clarification for this plan and that the fees that applied for that classification had since been paid.  He did, however, question the explanation of the fire fighting water supply for potential and current lots on the parcel.  James Nordstrom stated the plan should clarify that if a fifth lot was created from the current three subdivided lots in the future, fire fighting water supply would need to be provided for that fifth lot and all previous lots of the subdivision.
        The Chairman asked if Mason Drive was considered a Class VI roadway.  Peter Beers replied that Mason Drive was a private roadway owned by Cindy Wilson and maintained by an association.  James Nordstrom explained that the ZBA had granted the applicant a variance to subdivide on a Class VI road, namely, Mason Drive and that the Town would hence be relieved of maintenance responsibilities for Mason Drive.  The Chairman explained that this was a conflict of terms as Mason Drive was not a Class VI road.  The Planning Board Assistant stated that the minutes from the ZBA meeting at which the variance was granted classified Mason Drive as a Class VI private roadway.  James Nordstrom stated that was an impossible classification.  Chris Beers noted that the application for the ZBA variance included the term of private roadway and as a point of clarification, that the incorrect lot and map number was listed.  The Chairman surmised that the ZBA had granted the ability for the applicant to use someone else’s private road as frontage.  Peter Beers explained there was easements were obtained for all the lots on Mason Drive to have frontages.  The Chairman asked how there could be any frontages at all if the roadway was not a Class VI road.  The Planning Board Assistant noted that there was not enough detail to answer this question in the Notice of Decision by the ZBA.  The Chairman asked Bob Todd, LLS, for his thought on the subject.  Bob Todd, LLS, stated he was present for the applicant’s meeting with the ZBA and it had been clearly understood that Mason Drive was a private roadway and that Peter Beers and owner, Cindy Wilson had been in attendance.  He thought that according to Chapter 141 (no sure what Bob was referring to) there was an avenue by which the Selectman could grant a Building Permit to an applicant on a private way if the ZBA granted that power.  The Chairman concluded that the ZBA’s finding was that the applicant’s lot would not have its own frontage.

                James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Major Subdivision Application of Peter F.  Beers, Tax Map/ Lot # 15/8, Mason Drive & Laurel Lane, subject to:

               CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
BEERS, cont.

        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. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be                  signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
           4. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application, including the
              cost of recording documents at the HCRD.
                5. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement acceptable with the Selectman to release           
               the Town from any and all liability in responsibility for maintenance of Mason Drive.
                The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be December 12,                    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 the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the                    approval.  Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

DOWNING, DEBRA                                          Adjourned from 9/14/04
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location:  Saunders Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot # 1/12-1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, who represented the applicant.  No abutters were present.
        The Chairman stated there were no issues on the site walk held with members of the Board.  He added that waivers had been granted at the previous meeting for Erosion and Sediment Control, Site Specific and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies.  Bob Todd, LLS, asked if the Board had received the applicant’s Driveway Permit Application.  The Chairman said they had received the application.  Bob Todd, LLS, then asked if there were any outstanding fees related to the plan.  The Planning Board Assistant replied that she had faxed a copy of an unpaid overage billed by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., as their plan review had taken slightly longer that what was estimated.  She added that she would re-fax a copy of the bill and the amount due was approximately $96.00.  The Chairman asked if the waivers were included on the plan.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that they were included.

        Travis Daniels MOVED to approve the Major Subdivision plan of Debra Downing, Tax Map/Lot #1/12-1, Saunders Hill Road, subject to:

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1.       Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,  including
DOWNING, cont.

   all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2.       Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
             3. Approval of the language of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions regarding the                 installation of sprinkler systems in each house in the subdivision and deed                             language that would incorporate that requirement, by Town Counsel, the cost of                          which shall be borne by the applicant.
        4. Submission of executed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions regarding           
        sprinkler systems.  The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the                     applicant.
5. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent
        6.  Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be             
          signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
        7.  Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application, including the
 cost of recording documents at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be November 12, 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 the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.    

CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1.  Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New     
 Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwelling in   
          the approved subdivision.
          Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

          Bob Todd, LLS, asked if the Board felt Town Counsel’s review of the Declaration of Covenants would be completed within thirty days so that the applicant’s conditions precedent deadline was not compromised.  The Planning Board Assistant replied that Town Counsel’s review should be completed within that time frame.  James Nordstrom noted that the Board would gladly extend the applicant’s deadline for compliance with the conditions precedent in the event that Town Counsel’s review took longer that estimated.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application 04-071, for        proposed driveway, Lot #1/12-1, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements:
        the driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees.  Travis Daniels        
        seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.




VISTA ROAD, LLC                                                 Adjourned from 09/28/04
Public Hearing /Major Subdivision/14 Lots
Location: Inkberry and Wilson Hill Roads
Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District                       

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice and stated that the applicant had requested the Board reschedule the hearing date to November 9, 2004, which coincided with Miscellaneous Business Item #16.

        Bob Furey MOVED to adjourn the application of Vista Road, LLC, Public Hearing,  Major Subdivision, 14 Lots, Location: Inkberry and Wilson Hill Roads, Tax Map/Lot       #6/40-5, to November 9, 2004, at a time to be determined.  Gordon Carlstrom seconded    the motion and it PASSED unanimously.   

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 12, 2004

14.     A copy of a letter dated September 29, 2004, to Thomas Welch, Hobbins & Gardner, from Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant, re: cell towers, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.  (Thomas Welch or Representative present to give us an update.)
        
        Tom Welch stated that AT&T Wireless and Singular were in the process of merging, which had been, ongoing for the past several months, therefore, many projects had been placed on hold until the corporate structure was able to communicate more effectively.  He added that at time of the original request to extend the deadline it was considered that it would be for several months before projects ensued.  Tom Welch explained that at this point in time many smaller project tasks were being handled by contractors and sub-contractors who were now receiving no direction on what to do so they were not working.  The Chairman clarified that Mr. Welch was sent by AT&T to inform the Board that they had no idea what was going on within their company.  Tom Welch replied that was not his personal quote but was sent to represent the interests of AT&T until the merger occurred and build-ups commenced.  He noted that there were two sites involved, namely the Wilson Hill Road and Town Hall sites.  Tom Welch then introduced Cary Preble of TCP Communications, which he stated was the successor in interest to the Wilson Hill Road facility.  He explained that TCP was waiting for a carrier before they could begin construction and at this time AT&T was considered to be the carrier, however, it was unclear when the leasing process by TCP could begin.  The Chairman asked Cary Preble when construction of the facility could be completed.  Cary Preble replied that TCP was still waiting for clarification from AT&T but noted that her company could entertain offers from other carriers if they chose to enter the market for those sites.  Gordon Carlstrom asked what type of extension AT&T desired.  The Chairman added there were also outstanding administrative issues.  The Planning Assistant noted that the ownership change would result in name changes,
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

etc. to the administrative paper work.  Tom Welch requested a six-month extension to the conditions precedent and a one-year extension to the conditions subsequent for the applicant.  He added such extensions would eliminate the need for him to return every few months with extension requests.  James Nordstrom asked if Tom Welch believed the conditions precedent could be addressed quickly once the merger occurred.  Tom Welch replied that he felt they could and that the merger was the key to restarting the process.  He added that at the time of the merger Singular would assume the license that AT&T presently owned and in his experience he believed the deadlines would be quickly met.

        Travis  Daniels MOVED to extend the deadline dates for the conditions precedent and     conditions subsequent of AT&T Wireless for six months and one year respectively from    their current extension deadline date.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED     unanimously.

9.      Driveway Permit Application for Indian Falls, LLC, Indian Falls Road, Map/Lot #12/89-
        4, #12/89-5, #12/89-6, #12/89-7, #12/89-8, #12/89-9, #12/89-10, #12/89-11, #12/89-12, and #12/89-13, for proposed driveways, for the Board’s action. (Board to drive by prior to meeting

        The Planning Board Assistant stated that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had informed her that the road was not up to sub-grade from the entrance to the wetland crossing, but was up to sub-grade from the wetland crossing to the culvert and would only sign off on the latter portion.  The Chairman clarified that the road was to sub-grade in front of the driveways for the lots and asked if the wetland crossing came before the access of those lots.  The Planning Board Assistant replied this was the case.  Earney Mayo of Indian Falls, LLC, stated that they had received a verbal approval today from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to construct the concrete buttress walls, which preceded the construction of the wetland crossing.  He added that the written approval was forthcoming and this was the reason the first 300 feet of the road was not yet up to sub-grade.  Earney Mayo further added that the Road Agent and Fire Chief had been out to confirm that the roadway was passable in the event of an emergency.
        Gordon Carlstrom asked if there were any steep grade issues with the proposed driveways for the lots.  James Nordstrom replied that Lot #14 appeared to be the only lot with the potential for a grade issue, however, it had been indicated that the grade could be addressed.  Earney Mayo replied that it was actually Lot #7 which James Nordstrom referred to and the driveway grade was estimated to be 8.5-9% off the roadway.  Don Duhaime added that he thought Lot #12 was a close contender to Lot #7 for a steep driveway grade.  The Chairman noted that a driveway with any measure of positive grade off the roadway would require a follow up inspection by the Planning Board.  Don Duhaime added that he had not seen a driveway marker placed for Lot #11.  Earney Mayo explained that Lot #11 and #13 shared a driveway.
        James Nordstrom stated that the Planning Board Assistant made a valid point, which supported the stipulation that before Driveway Permits were issued the entire roadway needed to
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

be up to sub-grade and inspected.  Gordon Carlstrom asked if the sub-grade requirement could be a condition of the approval.  The Planning Board Assistant stated that it was her understanding that when a road was up to sub-grade from its entrance to a certain point, lots within that range were approved for driveways and any driveways for lots beyond that range could be conditionally approved.  She noted that this scenario presented the reverse of that example which she did not think was allowed.  The Chairman added that he was surprised that the Fire Department agreed to view a roadway in such condition.  Earney Mayo wished to note that they had been waiting six weeks for Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to approve their concrete buttress walls.  The Planning Board Assistant replied that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had been waiting for some construction to be done on the wetland crossing.
        James Nordstrom asked if the Road Agent had offered any comments.  The Planning Board Assistant replied that Mark LeBlanc had informed her that the Road Agent did not have any issues with the roadway.  The Chairman noted that the Road Agent was not as familiar with the Subdivision Regulations which required that a road be up to sub-grade before the Driveway Permit Applications were approved.  James Nordstrom added that a similar scenario for Building Permits had come before the Board two or three years prior and the ultimate
decision had been to wait on the approval until the road was up to sub-grade.  The Chairman stated that the applicant should inform the Board when the road was up to sub-grade at which point they could consider acting on the Driveway Permit Application.

22.     A copy of a fax received October 12, 2004, from Roger Dignard, to the Board, re:  New Boston Community Church requesting they receive a temporary Certificate of Occupancy before a compliance site walk and a hearing, was distributed for the Board’s discussion.

        The Planning Board Assistant explained that Dennis Sarette, Building Inspector, had suggested the New Boston Community Church request a temporary Certificate of Occupancy and to approach the Board for their approval .  Reverend Woodland explained that the Church was unaware of the three-week scheduling requirement for compliance hearings.  He added that the construction was nearly complete, landscape stakes had been placed and the Piscataquog Watershed Association (PWA) wished to hold a dinner on the site on October 23, 2004, for which the temporary CO was requested.  Reverend Woodland further added that the dedication ceremony on the site was planned for November 7, 2004.  He thanked the Board for hearing their request this evening as the conflict had just been discovered today.  Paula Bellemore noted that all the conditions subsequent for this plan would be met by Monday, October 18, 2004.  The Chairman thought that this request was clearly outside the norm where site compliance would be certified pending a future site walk.  The Planning Board Assistant stated that the Building Inspector was agreeable to the temporary CO until the site walk and compliance hearing for the period of October 18-26, 2004, pending the Board’s approval.
        The Chairman asked if sprinklers had been installed in the constructed addition and if the Fire Department needed to perform any inspections.  Reverend Woodland replied that there were

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

fire alarms installed in the addition.  Paula Bellemore noted the Fire Department was scheduled to inspect the alarms.  The Planning Assistant stated that after that inspection the Building Inspector would check the safety aspect of the alarms.  The Chairman stated that if the only items the Board was required to check were lighting and parking and the Building Inspector had performed all necessary life safety checks and was comfortable in issuing a temporary CO pending the Board’s site walk and compliance hearing then he would support the Building Inspector.  He added that the Building Inspector had informed him in the past that he did not issue temporary CO’s and the Board had been asked not to approve them.  Paula Bellemore felt that some leniency might be inferred due to the fact that a volunteer project management team had done the project for the church.
        Gordon Carlstrom asked when the compliance hearing was scheduled.  The Planning Assistant replied that it was scheduled for November 9, 2004.  Gordon Carlstrom noted that the date was after the planned dedication ceremony of November 3, 2004, which was also an issue.  The Planning Assistant stated that the agenda for October 26, 2004, was full but the compliance hearing could be added to that date if the Board agreed.  Paula Bellemore asked if the temporary CO would still be acceptable for the dates of October 18-26, 2004.  The Chairman stated that the decision to issue a temporary CO was ultimately that of the Building Inspector.  James Nordstrom noted that the life safety issues were ultimately, the responsibility of the Building Inspector.  The compliance hearing for the New Boston Community Church was rescheduled to October 26, 2004, at 7:25 p.m. and the compliance site walk was scheduled for October 23, 2004, at 8:00 a.m.
        The Chairman asked that the Planning Board Assistant send a letter to the Building Inspector stating that the decision was in his hands regarding the issuance of a temporary CO to the New Boston Community Church as it was the Board’s understanding that he had not be agreeable to CO’s of this type in the past.
        
21.     Discussion, re:  Michael Gagnon’s site plan to expand Mr. Gee’s Tires, North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/82.
        
        The Planning Board Assistant explained that this was a non-conforming site plan as the applicant had been in business prior to the Town’s 1977 Zoning Regulations.  She added that this was the first official surveyed site plan received from the applicant who considered his plan to be of the minor classification.  The Planning Board Assistant noted that the Coordinator had stated the applicant would need a surveyed plan for the expansion proposal.  The Chairman stated that because there was an existing house on commercial property the plan was still considered a non-conforming plan.  The Planning Board Assistant asked if the Board felt the plan was too complex and should be reviewed by Dufresne-Henry, Inc.  The Chairman did not see any issue with the Planning Department performing the plan review internally and was curious about the existing work bay on the plans, which he remembered to be a shed.  Travis Daniels noted that he thought the applicant only kept tires in the work bay and might pull vehicles in occasionally when it

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

rained.  The Chairman stated that a site plan review was necessary to clarify the work areas on the plan.  Gordon Carlstrom agreed and added that more detail should be given on the existing work bay such as elevation, etc.  Don Duhaime asked if the applicant’s business dealt only with tires versus oil changes or any type of service that could compromise the abutting wetlands which were in close proximity to the north branch of the Piscataquog River at the site location.  James Nordstrom summarized that the site predated the Zoning Regulations and the applicant proposed to expand his pre-existing non-conforming plan.  Gordon Carlstrom asked if a non-conforming site plan could be made even more non-conforming.  The Chairman replied that the site was non-conforming due to the residence on the commercial site and the setbacks involved.  He added that if the applicant wished to encroach further into his current setbacks it would not be allowed, however, he had been allowed to expand by using the current guidelines somewhat loosely.  James Nordstrom read Section 503 of the Zoning Regulations, which stated: “Any and all non-conforming property made be altered and expanded internally as the business warrants provided, however, that such expansion does make any existing conforming building non-conforming.”  He added that the caveat statement also from Section 503 stated: “Non-residential site plan review shall be required in any event.”   The Chairman stated that the site plan classification should be changed to “Major” as the business was now becoming larger and getting closer to the wetlands.  Gordon Carlstrom added that the plan should include fire lane markings as well.  The Chairman reiterated that the plan definitely required a review as much information had been changed from the applicant’s original plan.  James Nordstrom stated that he would be available to answer any questions the Planning Board Assistant may have while reviewing the plan.  The Planning Board Assistant noted that the applicant was scheduled on the agenda for the meeting of October 26, 2004.

1.              The minutes of September 28, 2004, were distributed for approval at the meeting of      October 26, 2004, with or without changes.

2.      Approval of minutes of September 7, 2004, and September 14, 2004, with or without
changes. (Distributed at September 28, 2004, meeting)

The Chairman noted that he had some problems with the formatting of one of the E-mailed draft files received from the Planning Department.  James Nordstrom noted that he only read the pre-drafted version of the minutes and recalled some minor changes.  The Planning Board Assistant concurred and added the changes were made and that the Recording Clerk usually inserted highlighting and notes on the pre-draft where she had questions.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of September 7, 2004, and September        14, 2004, as written.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

5.      Schedule Compliance Sitewalk for C&G Ledges, LLC, by George Merrill, Whipplewill Road & NH Route 114, Map/Lot # 3/63-13, for the Board’s action.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
        
The Compliance site walk was scheduled for October 23, 2004, at 8:30 a.m.       

6.      Driveway Permit Application for Robert Vaughn, Bog Brook Road, Map/Lot #9/41-3, for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.

        James Nordstrom recused himself from the Board as his company was the surveyor for the applicant.  He added that although the newly designed driveway plan had the same slope as the original it was deemed a better design because its width would be 20 feet (16 of pavement and two foot shoulders on either side) and the incorporation of substantial drainage, which the original driveway did not have.  He added that much knowledge had been gained during the process of six other driveway constructions done on the same road.  James Nordstrom stated that if Mr. Melanson’s original driveway had the benefit of the drainage construction on this plan his driveway would have been in much better shape.  The Chairman inquired about the condition of the neighboring driveway.  James Nordstrom replied that the neighboring driveway had its problems and large areas of pavement were gone due to groundwater effects.  He added that if the groundwater issue had been addressed prior to the paving, the problem most likely would not have occurred.  The Chairman asked if the proposal to run drainage across the road in order to prevent water from collecting at the end of the driveway was still being considered.  James Nordstrom explained that he had learned from the Road Agent that there was a preexisting drainage problem on Bog Brook Road, which happened to be in an area adjacent to this driveway construction site.  He added that the Road Agent believed constructing this driveway would exacerbate that drainage problem and saw two options: 1. Add another culvert in that area of Bog Brook Road. 2. Improve the situation between the driveway and the existing culvert.  James Nordstrom felt that the decision should be the Road Agent’s and if during the driveway construction he wanted another culvert added and/or a 100-foot section of ditchline in that are, it should be done.  He noted that his suggestion would be to modify the plan so that portion of the roadway was left to the discretion of the Road Agent at the time of the driveway construction.  The Chairman agreed and thought the Road Agent would most likely request both options mentioned.  James Nordstrom noted that area of Bog Brook Road was a challenge for the Highway Department to maintain and when the road was improved and when some of the slopes were pushed back a small drainage problem became larger.  Don Duhaime asked who would assume the cost for the additional road improvements.  James Nordstrom guessed that the applicant would be pleased if the Town assumed the costs but was fairly certain he would cover the costs if needed because he wanted his driveway built.  Don Duhaime asked James Nordstrom if he thought his survey company should inform the applicant of the additional costs that would be added to the project.  James Nordstrom stated the additional costs could be attached to the plan and the approved Driveway Permit.  He noted that he had drafted a note to be added to the plans after the site walk was held which read: “Additional drainage culverts to be installed at the discretion of the Road Agent.  Contractor to coordinate any work with the Town of New Boston Highway Department.”  The Chairman added that the note also state that the cost of the additional drainage would be borne by the applicant.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

        Bob Furey asked if the applicant planned to install sprinklers in his home.  James Nordstrom replied that he thought the applicant was under the impression that Mr. Melanson had been mandated to install sprinklers in his  home.  The Chairman stated that Mr. Melanson volunteered to do so at the Board’s direction and in order to move his application process along.  Gordon Carlstrom noted that it would be wise for the applicant to do the same due to the steepness of the driveway and the same problems the emergency vehicles would have in accessing his home.  James Nordstrom stated that the applicant intended to install sprinklers and he had suggested that Mr. Vaughn obtain clarification from the Highway Department or Building Department as to whether he would have any difficulties in obtaining his CO if he did not install sprinklers.  The Chairman asked if the Board could mandate sprinklers for this applicant because they accepted the driveway construction grade of 12%.  James Nordstrom added there was a cistern installed for this subdivision.  Gordon Carlstrom noted that the issue was the Driveway Permit had already been accepted for that grade when it was originally proposed.  Bob Furey asked what situations relieved the Fire Department of liability.  Gordon Carlstrom replied that nothing relieved that liability and the attempts to provide service to any home were based on good faith efforts, however, a preexisting condition such as the applicant’s warranted advisement to the home owner.  Don Duhaime thought the Board should be able to dictate the installation of sprinklers in a case such as this because the steepness of the driveway did not satisfy the requirement for life safety codes.  Gordon Carlstrom reiterated that the problem was based on the fact that the driveway was originally approved at the same steep grade.  The Chairman added that if the Fire Department did not reject the driveway grade issue originally it would be hard to reject it now.  Gordon Carlstrom stated the Fire Department would send a letter of advisement to the applicant that recommended sprinkler installation.  James Nordstrom noted as a point of interest that the Fire Chief’s comments on the night of the applicant’s site walk paralleled Don Duhaime’s comments tonight.  

        Travis Daniels MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application for Robert Vaughn,  Bog Brook Road, Tax Map Lot#9/41-3, 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 twenty foot (20’) centerline of the road; the driveway intersection with the    road shall be joined by curves of radii minimum; and, the driveway shall intersect with         the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees.  As part of the driveway application, it is      stipulated that the Board strongly supports the Fire Department and recommends that      both homes accessed by this driveway should be protected with sprinklers due to the     unlikelihood of the ability for emergency service vehicles to negotiate the steep driveway      grade and that any additional costs for road improvements which were deemed necessary   by the  Road Agent due to the driveway construction shall be borne by the applicant.  
        Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
        

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.   

James Nordstrom asked if the Road Agent or Fire Department had signed off on the Driveway Permit Applications.  The Planning Board Assistant stated they had not and she would
speak with the Road Agent the following day.  She added that the Road Agent might have
additional requirements to include as well.

7.      Driveway Permit Application for Roger Dignard, South Hill Road, Map/Lot #13/50, for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action. (Board to drive by prior to meeting)

        Because no Board members had been able to view the above-proposed driveway this item would be included in Miscellaneous Business for the meeting of October 26, 2004.

10.     A copy of a letter received October 5, 2004, from Raymond T. Critch, L.L.S., Bedford Design Consultants, to the New Boston Planning Board, Re: Map/Lot #3/5, West Lull Place, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion. (Plan in office)

        The Planning Board Assistant     presented the plan for the Board’s perusal and stated that Paula Bellemore of the Piscataquog Watershed Association (PWA) had asked if it the Town would seek a dedication of the open space on the plans from the applicant.  Gordon Carlstrom stated that would defeat the purpose of the cluster subdivision proposed.  The Planning Board Assistant stated that it had been inferred that the applicant was willing to devastate the site by graveling if the variance needed to continue with the cluster design plan was denied.  Gordon Carlstrom replied that the applicant would have great difficulties when and if he sought a gravel permit for the site.  The Planning Board Assistant stated that the PWA feared that the applicant would use the plan’s right-of way access through the cul-de-sac to build to Cliff Wilson’s land.  James Nordstrom felt the right-of-way access was for a future waiver on the cul-de-sac length on the plans.  Gordon Carlstrom thought to take out the right-of-way access. The Planning Board Assistant noted that she heard Tris Gordon, Lull Road Corporation, will do what it takes to put in a subdivision i.e. devastate the land.  Gordon Carlstrom stated that he will have a tough time devastating it because he will need a gravel permit.  Gordon Carlstrom said if he starts hauling he will be shut down because it will not be incidental to the subdivision.  Planning Board Assistant questioned if Lull Road Corporation was to be further subdivided into Clifton Wilson’s land, using the open space as access, would they need permission from the property owners of the cluster.  James Nordstrom stated that there would be an easement deed attached to each of the warranty deeds.  James Nordstrom also noted that the access left on the cul-de-sac is not wide enough for a future access to further subdivide.  It could be an access to the open space and nothing more.

Bob Furey questioned Gordon Carlstrom on the problem of them graveling the lot.  Gordon Carlstrom stated if they do not get the variance from the ZBA, Lull Road Corporation will probably level it.  They would have to go through the gravel permitting process such as

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

apply for a site plan review, meet with the Selectmen and Planning Board.  Once the gravel is out, then they could possibly subdivide.  Gordon Carlstrom noted that it there could be a possibility that they could not get a gravel permit because of the many sensitive areas and the access to lot.  Gordon Carlstrom stated that the Board was better of sending the message that this is the plan we were looking for, getting it to the ZBA and getting the ZBA to grant them the variance.  Don Duhaime asked about if it would meet grade requirements without mining the land.  Gordon Carlstrom said it would not.  James Nordstrom stated that substantial amount of material would have to be removed to make it a suitable grade.  Bob Furey questioned the current access to the lot and asked if a subdivision should even be entertain if it cannot be accessed.  James Nordstrom and Gordon Carlstrom stated they could access it in a different way with dredge and fill permits.  James Nordstrom mentioned the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  He noted once the ordinance is posted, it’s in effect and if Lull Road came to the Board with a conventional subdivision, the Board could not accept it until a final vote in March.  Don Duhaime asked why Lull Road Corporation was going to the ZBA?  James Nordstrom stated that they are seeking a variance in the cluster ordinance to use the 25% steep slope or steeper in their lot density calculation.   This would give them more lots.  If they were not granted the variance they would loose several lots.

James Nordstrom stated  irregardless of which avenue Lull Road Corporation pursues, it will be a classic case of whether it will be a gravel operation or is it going to be incidental to the subdivision.  James Nordstrom felt to be able to build the road and make the lots salable, there will be a substantial earth removal operation.

8.      Driveway Permit Application for Lull Road Corporation, West Lull Place, Map/Lot #3/5, and #3/5-1, for a proposed driveway, for the Planning Board Chairman’s signature.

        The Chairman signed the above noted Driveway Permit Application.

11.     A copy of a letter dated September 28, 2004, from Rick Bashand, R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: Highland Hills subdivision bond reduction was distributed for the Board’s action.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the reduction of the subdivision bond for      Highland Hills, R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, as recommended by Dufresne-Henry,         Inc.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

12.     Daily road inspection reports dated August 16th, and August 17th, from Dufresne-Henry, Re: Forest View, were distributed for the Board’s information.

13.     Read File: Project, the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission Newsletter, Volume 29, No. 1.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

15.             A copy of a letter dated October 8, 2004, from New Boston Conservation Commission to    the Board, re:  Rick Martin, Beard Road, lots 5/52 & 50 and Tris Construction, Lull     Road, lot 3/5, was distributed for the Board’s information.

17a.    A copy of a letter dated October 9, 2004, from New Boston Conservation Commission to DES, re: dredge and fill application for Steve Caggiano, was distributed for the Board’s information.

17b.    A copy of Standard Dredge and Fill Application from Steven Caggiano, Bunker Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #1/25, was distributed for the Board’s information.

        Regarding item #’s 17a. and 17b., the Planning Board Assistant stated that the Conservation Commission was concerned that the applicant had placed fill in the Great Meadow Wetlands.  Travis Daniels stated that the applicant has supposedly placed the driveway for Tax Map/Lot #1/25 within a conservation easement.  He added that he disagreed with that finding because the area in question was an existing lot, which had provided access to a wood lot for quite some time.
18.     A copy of letter dated October 7, 2004, from DES to Earney Mayo, Indian Falls, re:  permit #2003-2526, request for additional impacts for setbacks, was distributed for the Board’s information.

        The Planning Board Assistant read a portion of the letter from DES: “After all local avenues have been exhausted and issues of design DES will consider requests for additional impacts for setbacks.”  James Nordstrom stated there were no local setback requirements.  Don Duhaime thought that the applicant needed to impact another 1,000 square feet of wetlands due to the design of the crossing that was changed by the Town Engineer, and therefore, had to petition DES.  James Nordstrom further explained that because Dufresne-Henry, Inc., who was an agent of the Town, made a design change for the applicant, the Town had in effect made Indian Falls, LLC, revise their design plan, which was not allowed.  Gordon Carlstrom wondered if this was still an issue as the applicant had stated earlier this evening that they had received a verbal approval from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to construct the concrete buttress walls which preceded the construction of the wetland crossing, and therefore, thought it must have been done within the State permit.  The Planning Board Assistant stated she would seek Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s clarification.  Don Duhaime clarified that the applicant had not done any work to the wetland crossing as of yet and needed to make the width of the wetland crossing wider due to the headwalls, but was first waiting for the Town Engineer to approve that change.

19.     A copy of a letter dated October 6, 2004, from the Local Government Center, Re:  copy
of a new publication, A Guide to Legislative Advocacy for Local Officials, for the Board’s
information.  (Copy in office.)

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.   

20.     Read File:  Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Francestown for October 19th, re:  co-location of wireless antenna on an existing cell tower and construction of an additional equipment shelter on Crotched Mountain.  

3.      Discussion re: Driveway Regulations.

        The Planning Board Assistant stated that she still needed to discuss the wording for the section on circular driveways with the Road Agent.

4.      Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement, for Indian Falls, LLC, Map/Lot # 12/89, Bedford Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.

        The Chairman endorsed the above noted Subdivision Agreement.
        
        James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn at 10:00 p.m.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and       it PASSED unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien, Recording Clerk                                       Minutes Approved: