Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2005
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular member, Travis Daniels; ex-officio Dave Woodbury; and, alternate Don Duhaime. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nicola Strong, Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, were David Craig, Bob Todd, LLS, Laura Todd, Greg Mattison, Phil Consolini, Ed DiPietro, Jim Kerouac, Esq., John McLellan, Corey Johnston, Jeff Cloutier, Tris Gordon, Bob Huettner, Jeff Fillmore, Jay Marden, Karen Heselton, Linda Pothier, Brent Armstrong, Paul Carideo, PE, Sam Proctor, Mitch Larochelle, Dave Elliott, Neil Smith and John Greenwood.
The Chairman appointed alternate Don Duhaime as a full voting member of the Board in the absence of James Nordstrom and Bob Furey.
This will be a public input session on the draft of the Driveway Regulations
The Chairman read the public input session notice. Upon the Coordinator’s request the Planning Assistant made copies of the Driveway Regulations draft for both the Board’s and audience members’ reference during the input session. The Coordinator stated that revisions had been made to the draft since the Board’s last review. The Chairman asked if the current copy of the draft reflected the changes that had been made. The Coordinator replied that it did. The Chairman asked the Coordinator and the Planning Assistant if they had noticed any items that warranted closer review in the new draft. Both the Coordinator and the Planning Assistant replied they did not.
The Chairman asked if the Circular Driveway section had been eliminated from the draft. The Planning Assistant replied that it was. The Chairman then asked if the 12’ minimum width was required or recommended for proposed driveways. The Coordinator replied that this width was recommended.
From the audience Dave Elliot asked how the current draft differed from the version that was reviewed one month prior. The Coordinator replied that the draft copies distributed this evening had changes made by italics or strike-throughs. Dave Woodbury asked if underlined text was new to the draft. The Coordinator clarified that underlined text was new to the draft and text that was crossed out had been removed from the draft.
The Chairman asked what the case would be for a culvert that could not accept 12 inches of cover as stipulated on page 7, Section 9.18 of the draft. He gave the example of a ditchline on his own road that did not have 12 inches of fill and noted that would mean a proposed culvert would need to be buried in a ditch at a depth of two feet. The Coordinator explained that in that scenario a culvert would most likely not be needed which would be acceptable, however, for cases where a culvert was required, 12 inches of cover was thought to be acceptable. Dave Elliot noted that any new road design would require a minimum depth of 12 inches of cover to accommodate a culvert and existing ditchlines could be altered to accomplish this. He added that this was a common scenario
and 99% of the time existing trenches were able to be successfully altered. Dave Elliot added that if there was less than 12 inches of cover on a culvert it would
work its way up through the fill and need to be removed and re-layed.
Dave Woodbury stated that this draft version appeared to clarify prior issues raised by the Board.
Bob Todd, LLS, asked for language clarification on page 6, Section 9.10, which spoke about the driveway intersecting with a road joined by curves of 10 foot radii minimum. He noted that normally these curves were at the edge of pavement and not necessarily the right-of-way. The Chairman stated that this was a phrase that had been revised in the draft. The Coordinator noted that the text change made to that phrase involved the radii measurement which was changed from 20 feet to 10 feet. Bob Todd, LLS, thought this language should incorporate the phrasing “edge of pavement” because a driveway began at the beginning of a right-of-way and not the road. Dave Woodbury thought that if “right-of-way” was the intended wording, in
his opinion, it would have been included in the phrase. The Coordinator thought the intention of the phrasing meant the edge of the pavement. Bob Todd, LLS, did not think the use of the word “road” in this phrase was consistent with the definition referenced within the draft: “…road, street, highway, when used with any of these regulations shall mean a public right-of-way”. The Chairman asked what phrasing could be universally incorporated for both paved and non-paved roads. The Coordinator suggested “…edge of the traveled way…”. The Chairman and Bob Todd, LLS, agreed with this suggestion.
Jay Marden asked if circular driveways would no longer be allowed in the Town. The Chairman replied that they would be allowed if constructed with one curb cut. Dave Woodbury asked if two curb cuts would be allowed as long as they were at least 200 feet apart as was discussed at a prior meeting. The Chairman replied that was correct and two curb cuts would be considered as two entrances. He added that, if designed properly, a circular driveway could be designed as entering a lot, looping back onto itself and exiting the lot at the same curb cut. Jay Marden asked if two curb cuts would ever be allowed. The Chairman and Dave Woodbury reiterated that two curb cuts would be allowed as long as they were 200 feet apart from each other. Dave Woodbury added
that the 200 foot distance would not be possible for most lots within the Town but could be feasible for some. He clarified that because of the exceptions mentioned the removal of the section on Circular Driveways should not be considered as a blanket prohibition against them.
Dave Elliot questioned page 7, Section 9.25, which mentioned two inches of “winter binder” on pavement. He interpreted winter binder to mean a cold patch material and thought the term should be changed to two inches of “base” pavement. Dave Elliot believed that one inch of wear course would be difficult to enforce as at least 75% of driveways had a single course of pavement which was a compromise between a base and top coat. The Chairman clarified that “winter binder” should be changed to “base” in this section. He explained that the intent of this phrasing was that because aprons generally were installed first for driveways of subdivisions the Town would like to see two inches of
binder down and then the remainder of the driveway could be paved from the road out. The Chairman added that 3 inches of pavement was not intended for an entire driveway.
Tris Gordon asked for clarification of the time frame for Driveway Permit Application
approvals and noted that the Permit application could be delayed if one of the bi-monthly
Planning Board meetings fell on a holiday which could in turn stall the approval of the coinciding Building Permit for up to one month. The Coordinator replied that Section 7.7, page 4, described that very scenario and, thus, allowed two to four weeks as an approval time frame for Driveway Permits. She explained that if an applicant submitted a Driveway Permit Application right after a Board meeting was held and then a holiday affected the subsequent Board meeting they could be delayed two to four weeks or slightly longer due to such a scheduling gap.
Dave Woodbury asked if any further amendments could be considered at the public hearing to adopt these regulations. The Coordinator replied that they could indeed and if amendments were suggested by the Board or the public, a subsequent Public Hearing would be scheduled to review those changes at which time the Board would have the option to adopt the Regulation. She added that multiple hearings could occur if deemed necessary, however, each Public Hearing needed to be advertised in a newspaper.
The Chairman asked if anyone knew the approximate cost of a driveway apron. Dave Elliot thought the cost would be approximately $1,500.00 for driveways that were mass produced within subdivisions. He added that an individual driveway apron would probably approach $2,000.00 for the culvert, gravels, excavation and paving. The Chairman asked what the cost would be if the driveway was complete except for the paving portion. Dave Elliot thought $1,000.00 would cover the cost of paving the apron. The Chairman thought that the proposed bonding amount of $1,250.00 was an appropriate figure and should remain in the draft.
Don Duhaime noted to the Coordinator that the Driveway Permit Application would also need to have its language altered if the term “winter binder” was to be eliminated. The Chairman asked if any other changes were needed to the draft. The Coordinator replied that the draft would be forwarded to Town Counsel for review and a Public Hearing would be scheduled. She added that the Board would ultimately vote to accept or reject the Driveway Regulations.
Tris Gordon asked if future proposed driveways would need to be designed by an engineer before their Driveway Permit Applications could be considered by the Board. The Coordinator replied that was not the case and that the Driveway Regulation draft was merely a written reference to practices that had been followed in the Town for the past 10-15 years. She added that the public should freely review the draft and contact the Board if they questioned any of the requirements it noted.
GRANITE STATE CONCRETE CO., INC.
JOINT HEARING OF THE ZBA AND PLANNING BOARD FOR
SPECIAL EXCEPTION & NON -RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW.
Location: Salisbury Road
Tax Map/Lot #13/5
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were ZBA Chairman David Craig, and board members Bob Todd, Greg Mattison, Phil Consolini and
Ed DiPietro. Also present was ZBA Recording Clerk Laura Todd. The Chairman stated that the Planning Board would take seats in the audience and allow the ZBA to take the table for discussion.
Present for the applicant were Jim Kerouac, Esq., of Gallagher, Callahan and Gartrell, John McLellan of Granite State Concrete, Jeff Cloutier of North American Reserve and Corey Johnston of Keach-Nordstrom and Associates.
---Please refer to the ZBA minutes of February 8, 2005, for this discussion---
At the conclusion of the ZBA’s portion of the hearing the Planning Board was reseated. The Chairman asked what the slope percentage of the reclaimed portion of the site would be. Jeff Cloutier replied that it would be 2:1 or 20%. The Chairman clarified that at a 20% slope this land would be too steep for a house lot. Jeff Cloutier agreed and added that developable land was more likely to exist on the flat portion of the site to the west of that slope. The Chairman asked how far the 20% slope would run. Jeff Cloutier replied that it would run 200 feet out and approximately 100 feet down. The Chairman asked what the applicants visualized for the site once the gravel project was completed. Jeff Cloutier replied that this could not be
determined presently as the project was expected to run 25 years. He added that although the land could have many potential uses there was no way to tell what the Town regulations would dictate in the future. Jeff Cloutier noted that Mr. McLellan had stated that the intent was to reclaim graveled portions of the site by loaming and re-vegetation. John McLellan noted that areas reclaimed on the site 10 years prior now had tree growth and more recently reclaimed areas had grassy slopes.
Dave Elliot wished to note that a 2:1 slope was a 50% slope, not a 20% slope. The Chairman asked what the minimum slope requirement was for a septic installation. Dave Elliot replied that the standard slope ratio for septic systems was 3:1 and the maximum slope ratio allowed was 2:1 which was usually approved with a variance. He added for the record that 20% slopes accepted houses nicely.
Jay Marden questioned the accuracy of the applicants’ topography map as it was stated that they did not intend to clear within 50 feet of the road. Jeff Cloutier noted the location of the right-of-way for Salisbury Road on the topography map and where the 50 foot line was drawn. Jay Marden stated that he had misinterpreted the 50 foot line to be a road and now better understood the description.
The Chairman stated that a site walk had been held. He noted that this applicant had conducted an on-going operation from the site with no complaints from abutters. He added that it was his assumption that the applicant wished to expand the boundaries of the operation and not the equipment that ran it. Jeff Cloutier replied that was correct. The Chairman went on to state that the applicant had moved the access road further from abutters at their request. John McLellan clarified that they had originally planned an access road closer to abutters but had abandoned that idea and moved the road further from the abutters into the south east quadrant of the site.
Jim Kerouac, Esq., stated that the applicant requested a waiver on a portion of the
$12,704.13 application fee as noted in a letter dated December 29, 2004, by Michele Brown.
He added that the applicant felt this fee exceeded what would normally be consistent for most Site Plan applications which was upheld by Section 12 of the Site Plan Regulations. Jim Kerouac, Esq., added that the applicant would accept responsibility for any additional costs required by the Board for outside engineering review. He noted that the applicant wished to address any checklist items related to the plan this evening so that the Board could determine if the application was complete. The Chairman was unsure that the application fee could be reduced. The Coordinator explained that the only application fees for Site Plans were based on $.05/s.f. for an application with a building or $.01/s.f. for an application with land only. She added that because this application encompassed many acres the fee
calculated did seem unreasonable, however, she had not yet researched an alternative calculation and asked if this could be discussed at the applicant’s next scheduled hearing. The Chairman asked if the Coordinator could look into what other towns would charge given the same scenario. The Coordinator replied that she could review that option. The Chairman stated that the application appeared to be complete according to the Site Plan Regulations.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the application of Granite State Concrete Co., Inc., Non-Residential Site Plan Review, Location: Salisbury Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/5, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked if the applicant had a copy of the minor corrections that were needed on the plan. Corey Johnston replied that they did and submitted full sized and reduced copies to the Board. The Chairman asked at what rate the slopes would progress as viewed by a potential new lot owner across from the site, within the next two years. He further asked what that potential lot owner would see across the street from a home set 50 feet back from the road. John McLellan replied that this potential lot owner would see no evidence of the gravel project as they would be working 100 feet below the street level. Jeff Cloutier added that the slope would move in increments as graveling progressed rather than having a pit appear immediately. Dave Woodbury asked
if the pit would progress on site from north to south or west to east. John McLellan replied that the pit would progress from west to east. Dave Woodbury clarified that a potential lot owner across the street would probably not see any signs of the project for several years. John McLellan replied that they would not be near the 50 foot buffer for 10’s of years. He explained that the ZBA had questioned what number of yards would be taken from the site which was approximately 200,000, however, this yardage would be collected from not one but several different locations simultaneously because different materials from each area needed to be blended. Dave Woodbury asked if vegetation would be stripped from the lots as graveling progressed or if clearing would be wide spread. John McLellan replied that vegetation would be stripped as graveling progressed.
The Chairman asked what type of signage was installed at the pit. John McLellan replied
that there were signs located at the entrance to the pit and on the property along the road. The
Chairman asked if the applicant would be willing to install a sign on the corner of their lot so that a potential buyer across the road would be aware of the gravel operation. John McLellan replied that he had no objection to this request but noted there were existing signs along the road approximately every 50 feet. Dave Woodbury thought that anyone who entered that area of Salisbury Road would pass the site’s front gate and see the existing sign, although he was not familiar with the route potential buyers of those lots would use and whether they would travel far enough down Salisbury Road to see the applicant’s sign. The Chairman thought that it might be difficult to see the applicant’s sign if the gate to the site were open and did not want future lot owners to complain that they had been unaware
of the existing gravel business before they purchased their lot. Dave Woodbury commented that he assumed some individuals might make that comment but he would probably not be sympathetic to their complaint. John McLellan wished to note that they had operated their business from the site for many years and had been very sensitive to the abutters in that area. The Chairman noted that the applicant had good neighbors who understood that the project existed and were accepting of it. The Coordinator was unsure how understanding the same abutters would be if another large sign was installed on the site. She added that she agreed with Dave Woodbury’s comment that the existing signage was sufficient and recalled from the subdivision plan that even the lot closest to the turnpike on Hopkins Road, which was the furthest lot from Granite State’s site, had a view of the applicant’s sign from its driveway. The Coordinator noted that as a
general rule “buyer beware” was appropriate in this case. The Chairman asked Jeff Fillmore, from the audience, if he was an abutter. Jeff Fillmore replied that he lived in the immediate area but was not considered an abutter to the site. Jay Marden stated that the Chairman’s suggestion of a sign was a good one as it would put potential buyers on notice to the gravel business.
An interested party, Linda Pothier, asked if this application would be benefited by any grandfathered regulations. The Chairman replied that the application before the Board had no such benefits and that grandfathering was mentioned during the ZBA’s portion of the hearing because they were referencing a different site within the pit. Linda Pothier stated that with that knowledge would not the same regulations be applied to any application for a new gravel pit that were being discussed for this one, i.e., the suggestion for another sign at the site. The Chairman explained that the Board was trying to address the concerns of future neighbors in this case. Jeff Fillmore noted that the applicant already had a large sign at the entrance to the gravel pit.
Linda Pothier asked if the regulations imposed for the applicant’s “new” gravel pit would also be imposed for any other “new” gravel pit application that came before the Board. Dave Woodbury clarified that Ms. Pothier was trying to point out that this was the first case of a gravel pit within the Town which was not grandfathered and, therefore, if recommendations were made for this application would the same recommendations apply for other new gravel pit applications. He went on to state that he did not think that would be the case as all projects should be considered unique unless a universal scenario presented itself which he thought was unlikely. The Chairman reiterated that no grandfathered status was being applied to this application. Dave
Woodbury stated that he did not see the need for any additional signage on the site that what
already existed.
Don Duhaime asked if terracing the pit would be more appropriate than creating a slope. Jeff Cloutier replied that the slope would be stable, although he would have no issue with terracing as an alternative. He added that much steeper slopes existed in other areas of the gravel site that were stable. Don Duhaime asked if the soil type on the site was sandy. Jeff Cloutier replied that it was. Don Duhaime asked if the Board would stipulate the amount of acreage that could be disturbed at any one time on the site. The Chairman replied that the Board would make such a stipulation because the ZBA had made that a condition of their motion during their portion of tonight’s hearing. Dave Woodbury stated that he did not believe the Board could address
the many issues that existed for this application at tonight’s hearing. The Coordinator suggested that the applicant consider the ZBA’s concerns regarding wind erosion on the site for the next scheduled hearing. The Chairman agreed and recommended that the applicant return with proposals on how they could deal with the ZBA’s other conditions on open acreage, noise, aesthetics and monuments. He asked if the applicant would be within 50 feet of the monuments at the boundary corners of the site because of the 50 foot buffer. Jeff Cloutier noted that Section 155.E of the Site Plan Regulations allowed a 10 foot buffer on an applicants’ own property line. The Chairman noted that the ZBA had requested a 30 foot buffer in that location and asked the applicant to consider this in their proposal. He added that he was unsure how the requirement for visual improvements could be made on a sand pit.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn the application of Granite State Concrete Co., Inc., Non-Residential Site Plan Review, Location: Salisbury Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/5, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to March 22, 2005, at 9:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
SUSAN MARTIN Adjourned from 1/11/05
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/3 Lots
Location: South Hill & McCollum Roads
Tax Map/Lot #14/1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, who represented the applicant. An abutter present was Brent Armstrong.
The Chairman stated that he had questioned sight distance to the left of the proposed Lot #14/1-2, but was able to confirm that it was satisfactory. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that at the prior meeting with the Board abutter Brent Armstrong had noted that a separate septic system serviced the guest house on the site which was contrary to the information reflected on the plan. He added that he had since confirmed that Mr. Armstrong’s information was correct and had made the appropriate revisions. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that details of the driveway section subject to a common easement which benefited two lots were added to the plan with reference made in the legend. He went on to add that an underground electric line ran from a set of utility boxes on
Tax Map/Lot #14/1-2, one of which belonged to Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) and the other of undetermined ownership. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that because underground lines ran to the guest house and farmer’s cottage an intent to grant an easement was added to the plan which would benefit Tax Map/Lot #14/1-1 for maintenance purposes of this underground utility line. He added that PSNH could not locate their easement document for Lot #14/1-1 and was preparing a new one for the applicant’s signature. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that PSNH offered to research the owner of the additional utility line and believed it was likely to be Verizon. He stated that the PSNH’s contact was very thorough and he felt assured this issue would be properly resolved.
Bob Todd, LLS, noted that he had spoken with the applicant, Sue Martin, regarding Brent Armstrong’s concern over the private covenants for the site and she assured him that both George Olmstead III and his sister Mrs. Joan Oates, holder of these rights of enforcement, had no objections to the plan. He added that the applicant was hesitant to press either party for a formal written letter at this time as they were currently both caring for seriously ill spouses. Dave Woodbury stated that while the Board could assume that the applicant had accurately conveyed the events of resolving the covenant issue presented by Mr. Armstrong they could inversely assume that if the applicant had not addressed the covenant issue properly she could suffer legal ramifications in the future. Bob Todd, LLS, agreed and added that he did not believe the enforcing parties of the covenants were interpreting them in the same manner as Mr. Armstrong and felt that the applicant was most likely not at
risk although such a scenario could materialize in the future. Abutter, Brent Armstrong, thought that the additional box on the site was owned by Verizon and most likely provided underground telephone utility service to the neighboring South Hill Road and McCollum Road. In regard to the covenants on the site, Brent Armstrong stated that the only opinion that mattered in this case was that of the declarants, George Olmstead III and Joan Oaks, and if the applicant contended that these parties had no objection to the plan then it would be legally prudent of Sue Martin’s to have a signed letter from the declarants attached to the plan file that stated this. The Chairman noted that the declarants letter should additionally state that they had no willingness to enforce the covenants on the site. Brent Armstrong stated that because the covenants ran with the land and not its ownership it would impact everyone who became involved with these lots going forward. Dave Woodbury asked if
the Board would need to cease its consideration of the application until such a letter could be obtained from the declarants or if noting the issue for the record would suffice which was his preference. The Coordinator explained that the Board could not become involved in the enforcement of private covenants nor make a suggestion as to how this issue should be handled as private covenants are of no consequence to the Town. She did note that Brent Armstrong’s comments would certainly be included in the minutes. Bob Todd, LLS, asked if the Board had a record of the covenants on file. The Coordinator replied that they did. The Chairman stated that he questioned the purpose of covenants. The Coordinator noted that covenants were put in place by private individuals for a purpose but could be overturned if individuals sold their property or moved away and did not enforce same. Brent Armstrong stated that in reviewing the
enforcement of the covenants it was evident that even if the declarants chose not to act on something now they reserved the right to act at a later date if they chose, which prompted his concern that some form of communication with the declarants was prudent on the applicant’s part. The Chairman asked if the declarants could be sent a certified letter by the Board to the same effect. The Coordinator noted that the law clearly stated that only abutters, surveyors and holders of conservation and preservation easements were parties that could receive certified letters from the Board. She added that an applicant could not, therefore, be charged a certified mail fee to notice individuals who may hold other types of easements or private covenants on a property. The Chairman asked the relationship of the declarants
to the applicant. Brent Armstrong thought that Sue Martin was the grand niece of the mother to the declarants. He suggested that the Board might consider adopting a methodology for notifying covenant holders of transpirings on related properties. The Chairman stated that he was concerned about granting subdivision applications on properties that might have declarants unaware, but realized that the Board did not enforce private covenants. The Coordinator stated that, in her opinion, if a private covenant is set by a party for a piece of property it is their responsibility to monitor its enforcement. Jay Marden asked if such covenants were kept on record. The Chairman replied that they were. Jay Marden then stated that it should be the responsibility of the attorney for a potential buyer to note the existence of such covenants. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the covenants were also referenced on the plan.
Dave Woodbury asked if all of the conditions precedent for the plan were still outstanding. The Coordinator stated that item #6 which dealt with the language of the Driveway Easement was received but needed review by Town Counsel. She then asked the Board if the Declaration of Covenants for the sprinkler systems needed to be reviewed by Town Counsel as an identical covenant written by Bob Todd, LLS, had been reviewed by Town Counsel and approved by the Board for a different subdivision. Dave Woodbury clarified that item #8 of the conditions precedent would then be unnecessary. The Coordinator asked Bob Todd, LLS, if the bounds had been set on the revised plan. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that they were. The Coordinator stated that item #4 of the conditions
precedent should then be stricken.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plat, Land of Susan B. Martin, South Hill and McCollum Roads, for the subdivision of Tax Map/Lot 14/1 into 3 new lots, 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. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
4. Submission of the language of the Driveway Easement for review and approval by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
5. Submission of an executed Driveway Easement for recording at the HCRD, the cost
of which shall be borne by the applicant.
6. Submission of executed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions regarding
sprinkler systems. The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
7. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be June 01, 2005, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring 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.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
HARVEY DUPUIS FAMILY TRUST
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/ 8 Lots
Location: Carriage Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/93 & 12/93-22
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Paul Carideo, PE, of T.F. Moran who represented the applicant. Dave Elliot, Neil Smith and Mitch Larochelle were also present. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Paul Carideo, PE, stated that the applicant had met with the Board approximately one year prior and had presented preliminary plans for the subdivision which included a proposed road connection to lands owned by the Bussiere and Lorden families. He added that because these connections were not yet finalized with the abutting property owners they wished to submit a final application at tonight’s hearing with plans that showed the first phase of the proposed future layout for that road connection network with one road in, where the next phase was the assumed extension of this road to property owned by Emile Bussiere. Paul Carideo, PE, stated that eight lots were proposed with one being the remaining parcel, Tax Map/Lot #12/93 and four new lots created by a lot line
adjustment with Tax Map/Lot #12/93-22. He noted that all State approvals were received and submitted a copy of the State Subdivision Approval to the Coordinator. Paul Carideo, PE, added that slopes of 15%-25% and 25% and greater were calculated and noted on a separate sheet within the plan set.
The Chairman asked the length of the subdivision’s proposed road. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that the proposed road’s length was 1,700 feet. He noted that there were no future plans to extend the road but wished to discuss the possibility of a hammerhead cul-de-sac in order to facilitate the goal of connecting through the Bussiere parcel at some point. The Chairman stated that he could not imagine why the Board would approve the application until a firm commitment
was established from the abutting landowners that the applicant’s proposed road would be allowed a connection through their properties or some other road outlet was designed.
He added that without such a commitment there was a risk that a 1,700 foot dead end would be created as no options seemed to exist to create an outlet onto New Boston Road. The Chairman further added that no surveys had been presented that defended the possibility of such an outlet. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that he had presented such a road profile at the applicant’s prior meeting with the Board but the design had not been well received, therefore, the road plan was changed to the current profile with the understanding that it could be accepted as long as the Bussiere family agreed to establish a future connection through their property. The Chairman explained that no formal commitment had yet been given by the Bussiere family to allow this outlet and it was the Board’s responsibility to assure that the
proposed road did not become a 1,700 foot dead end. He noted that it was the applicant’s responsibility to secure binding agreements from the abutting landowners before the plan was formally submitted and to devise how and where the road would connect through these properties. The Chairman added that he did not recall that an outlet for the initial road design was ever presented and that a neighbor to the proposed subdivision had commented that he thought an outlet for the proposed road would not be possible. Paul Carideo, PE, stated that one connection was planned through the Indian Falls development but that the outlet proposals towards New Boston road would not be addressed for some time. Don Duhaime noted that at last year’s meeting with the applicant a comment was made regarding a connection to Bedford Road being made within two years. The Coordinator clarified that no such statement had been made. She thought that it had been
clarified in the past that the Town hoped for a road network in that area and sought such networks because it was beneficial for the police, fire department, etc., but there could be no guarantee when or if it would happen in this case as abutting landowners could not predict when they themselves would subdivide.
The Chairman clarified that the Board could not accept the application as it was currently presented because there was a risk that the proposed road could become a 1,700 foot dead end. Neil Smith, a representative of the Dupuis Family Trust, stated that they presumed the Board had given their opinion as to how the applicant should proceed at the last meeting and hoped that the Board would notice their good faith efforts to accommodate the road design to their best abilities. The Chairman replied that the Board did recognize these efforts. Neil Smith added that there had been discussions held with the Lorden family regarding a possible connection through their property which would most likely occur at Lot #34 but this was also not finalized. He wished to propose that
the applicant not have to rely on the confirmation of one abutter because where one may decline a connection another may accept. He was unsure as to what other options they had other than to continue discussions with these abutters. The Chairman replied that a secured road outlet should be the goal for this application. Neil Smith stated that the applicant had no control over adjoining properties. He noted that originally a horseshoe looped road off Carriage Road was proposed which would have eliminated the connection issue. The Chairman replied that another loop onto Carriage Road would not satisfy Town requirements or traffic flow. Neil Smith stated that the Board had expressed concern that a continuing latter effect would be
created by looping onto an adjoining property. He added that they could have pursued the latter effect by designing the loop at an alternate location on Carriage Road but took the Board’s advice on seeking road connections. Neil Smith stated that he felt frustrated by tonight’s turn of events. The Coordinator stated that there was a conflict between what the Board had viewed on the preliminary plans and what the final plans now showed as the preliminary plan proposed a looped road with two entrances and a connector unpaved road noted as Harvey Lane, that linked the two. She added that the final plans now showed a slightly different design with one entrance into the phase (a 1,700 foot dead end), and a hope for a future connection that would allow a continuation into the second phase of the project. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that the unpaved looped road was proposed as an alternative design but had not been the primary design choice as it presented multiple areas of conflict for
traffic flow. Dave Woodbury felt each reiteration of the plan was becoming less desirable and that tonight’s road design differed considerably from what the Board had seen in the applicant’s preliminary hearing last year. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that the Board’s final suggestion at the preliminary hearing was that they wanted the proposed road to connect to abutting properties and they had worked diligently to establish such connections with Indian Falls but still had the issue of the 1,700 foot roadway which would remain a dead end until connections with abutters were agreed upon. He added that the Board had also not seemed in favor of the proposed Harvey Lane usage when it was previously discussed. Dave Woodbury stated that he recalled the Board was against the permanence of Harvey Lane but was not against using it as temporary access for the project. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that the applicant took the Board’s input into
consideration when designing the proposed road for the final submittal and chose to design a simple road with a more acceptable flow.
Dave Woodbury summarized that it appeared the applicant was getting ahead of themselves by asking for a plan approval before the assurance of abutters was confirmed for road connections that were pivotal to the project. The Chairman stated that the assurance of the abutters was required before the plan could proceed. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that the only way to gain such assurance at this point was to purchase the abutting property. Neil Smith added that plans which successfully illustrated these connections would be of no merit until they were formally approved by the Board. The Chairman replied that the applicant could instead propose a lot line adjustment to accomplish the same point. Neil Smith asked the Chairman to clarify this suggestion. The
Chairman explained that a lot line adjustment could be proposed through an abutter’s property purchased by the applicant with a 50 foot right-of-way for a Town road. Neil Smith asked if that proposal could be made regardless of it being an acceptable location. The Chairman replied that it would have to be an acceptable location as it would need to be appropriately planned. Neil Smith clarified that in effect the applicant would have to show how the road could be built, for example, through the Bussiere property, and have that road design approved by the Board before the overall subdivision plan including that road could be approved. The Chairman added that the applicant would then not have a proposed 1,700 foot dead end road on the plan. He added that the abutting property owners faced the same challenges because in order to continue subdivisions of their properties the roads proposed within them needed to be linked through the applicants’
land and at this point the intentions of these abutters were not
confirmed. Neil Smith stated that their first proposal for a looped roadway off Carriage Road was not accepted by the Board and that while the applicant intended to design a road that the Town deemed acceptable, he felt the Board had misdirected the applicant thus far. He added that if a cul-de-sac design was acceptable to the Board the applicant would be agreeable to that also. The Chairman asked how long the could-se-sac would be. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that the cul-de-sac would be 1,700 feet. The Coordinator noted that the maximum cul-de-sac length allowed by the Town was 1,000 feet. Don Duhaime asked how much of the proposed road was presently constructed. Neil Smith replied that only driveway accesses to the proposed lots had been established. Don Duhaime asked if the lots had been
approved. Neil Smith noted on the plan that Lot #12/93-22 had been approved as a backlot for a formerly approved three lot subdivision. The Chairman realized that the price of the abutting land would increase once the abutting owners realized the applicant’s need for the connection in order to proceed. He reiterated that the main issue was both the length of the dead end cul-de-sac currently noted on the plan and the formerly proposed loop road off Carriage Road which would cause excessive traffic flow. Neil Smith clarified that the Chairman believed this site was an undevelopable piece of property until an adequate outlet for the proposed road was established. The Chairman replied that he felt this point had been made in the previous meeting. Mitch Larochelle disagreed and stated that he had been to all the meetings related to this subdivision and that they had in good faith conceptualized the road networks for this plan as the Board
requested while emphasizing that further cooperation from abutting landowners would be required. He stated that he also felt the Board had misguided the applicant in this regard.
The Coordinator stated that she would like to review the minutes of the prior meetings held with the applicant and suggested that they be scheduled on the agenda for the Board’s next meeting date of February, 22, 2005. Neil Smith replied that would be acceptable.
Jay Marden stated that last year he attended a meeting held by the Board with the engineer for the Indian Falls Development. He added that the same points for road connections were discussed and the engineer had replied that the cooperation from abutting property owners would be necessary to establish the desired networks between neighboring subdivisions. Mitch Larochelle stated that such discussions had been held with these abutters. The Chairman noted that discussions may have occurred, however, no agreements to road connections had yet been assured. Dave Elliot stated that at last year’s meeting the applicant had noted that their plan schedule would run ahead of the abutting property owners and the Board had agreed that was the case, therefore, it was the
applicant’s responsibility to design a road system for their subdivision plan that could connect to the other properties in the future. The Chairman replied that the key to this issue was gaining the assurance from abutters that they would cooperate to make these connections happen. Mitch Larochelle noted that the abutter’s time frame to do so was out of their control. Dave Elliot stated that this point was discussed at last year’s meeting because it seemed to be a difficult issue to address and he wished the Board would have better clarified that the subdivision plan could not proceed until the road connection agreements were confirmed. The Chairman stated that Jay Marden may be correct in stating that the Board indicated this point more clearly to Indian Falls than to this applicant. Mitch Larochelle noted that the Board had
asked them to phase eight houses per year for this project which was part of their current proposal and had experienced no issues with the Board in their six year relationship concerning this project until now. He added that he was completely caught off guard by the events of
tonight’s meeting.
The Chairman asked if the applicants could meet with the Board on February 22, 2005, at 8:30 p.m. Neil Smith and Mitch Larochelle stated that they would be unable to attend on that date. The Coordinator suggested that a meeting be scheduled for that date with Paul Carideo, PE, representing the applicants so that this issue could be resolved in a timely manner. She added that a second meeting could then be scheduled on March 22, 2005, when the other applicants could be in attendance. Dave Elliot reiterated that because the applicants had discussed this issue with the Board before, tonight’s interpretations were very surprising. Dave Woodbury wished to note that the Board had not seen this iteration of the plan until this evening and, secondly, the plan as
presented did not satisfy the Subdivision Regulations. The Chairman replied that Dave Woodbury’s observations were correct. Neil Smith noted that the Board was not satisfied with the original proposal presented but was in favor of the applicants’ pursuance of an eight lot phase because of the uncertainty of future road connections within the subdivision. Dave Woodbury stated that he raised the question because he did not sit on the Board year-round and was, therefore, not present for certain hearings, however, his colleagues had confirmed that his recollections were correct. Mitch Larochelle stated that the reason the road connection from the proposed cul-de-sac was pending on the plan was because they were attempting to meet with Ray Shea, of Sandford Survey, in order to determine the best connection point through the Bussiere property. The Chairman stated that although a 1,700 foot cul-de-sac would not be acceptable to the Board, they
realized that the applicants had spent time and money on their conceptual designs and had worked in good faith with abutters. He wished to note that the Board would consider road connection plans that were being worked by Ray Shea, for Indian Falls, LLC, and in respect to the intent of the applicants’ road plan. Neil Smith stated that he believed Ray Shea, had presented a conceptual design at a meeting with the Board for Indian Falls, LLC, that proved such road connections were possible between the involved subdivisions. Mitch Larochelle added that, again, they had waited to present similar scenarios on their own plan because they wished to first establish their feasibility with Ray Shea. Dave Elliot asked if it was possible for the Board to accept the plan on the condition that the applicants would provide more information on the road connections as their proposal was for a first phase only. He added that they certainly would have pursued this
issue with more intensity in preparation for tonight’s meeting had this point been better clarified at the preliminary hearing last year. The Chairman replied that a great deal of information was still required on the road connection proposals and suggested that they wait to see what the Coordinator’s research on the prior meeting minutes detailed.
The Coordinator wished to note that there were missing items on the plan per the checklist review. Mitch Larochelle replied that they had addressed all items in order to submit them at tonight’s hearing. The Chairman stated that these items should have been submitted prior to tonight’s meeting. Dave Woodbury noted that it was important to clarify what was
approved in the preliminary phase of the application. The Chairman noted that the conceptual road design was good but that the Board would need to be assured that the connections would happen. He added that Indian Falls, LLC, seemed to be closer to their confirmation of a road connection than was previously thought.
Jay Marden stated in previous discussions with Ray Shea, it was noted that the developers of these projects would consider recreation land to be set aside because of the total number of house lots that were proposed. The Chairman replied that he also recalled this discussion. Mitch Larochelle replied that he believed discussion for recreation land dealt with another 100 acre parcel that was in the conceptual planning stage as this subdivision had already donated a considerable amount of land to the Town.
Don Duhaime asked how many years were estimated to establish connections with Indian Falls, LLC, the Bussiere project and their own. Mitch Larochelle replied that their own two phases would take approximately two years and that Indian Falls, LLC was only in its first phase. Don Duhaime noted that Indian Falls, LLC, was not allowed to build past their first phase until the road connections were established. Mitch Larochelle thought that connections would be most likely established in the next five years. Neil Smith added that it was hard to pinpoint a time frame as they were unsure of other developers’ schedules, the economy, growth restrictions, etc.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn the application of Harvey Dupuis Family Trust, Major Subdivision, 8 Lots, Location: Carriage Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/93 and 12/93-22, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to February 22, 2005, at 8:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
CURTIS HILL, LLC Adjourned from January 11, 2004
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/ 7 Lots
Location: Old Coach Road
Tax Map/Lot #10/3
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Sam Proctor of Curtis Hill, LLC. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Sam Proctor stated that there were two outstanding issues on the plan that he wished to discuss with the Board. He noted that they had unknowingly disregarded the stipulation that a change in elevation must occur for a span of at least twenty feet in order to be considered an area of reduction in accordance with the Steep Slopes Ordinance. Sam Proctor stated that once James Nordstrom raised this point at the prior meeting, they correctly applied this stipulation and all proposed lots of the subdivision were found to be in compliance with the exception of one that required a lot line adjustment of twenty feet. He added that the revised plans were submitted to the Planning Department on February 10, 2005, and included a separate plan sheet that illustrated the site’s
compliance with the contiguous flatland requirement for proposed lots. He added that
all the lots possessed well over two acres of contiguous flatland. Sam Proctor then submitted a formal written letter to the Board which offered justification for the waiver request to the Fiscal Impact Study. The Chairman read the letter as follows:
“…The seven lot subdivision has frontage on an existing road. No new road is proposed, therefore, no extra roads to maintain. All houses have sprinklers for fire protection, therefore, no cistern to maintain unless demand on the fire department. We feel a study is not necessary as there are no unusual or extra impacts to the Town…”
The Board agreed that the letter offered acceptable justification to grant a waiver.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to grant the waiver requested in the letter dated January 10, 2005, by Art Siciliano, LLS, for the Fiscal Impact Study. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Planning Assistant noted that a waiver was also formally requested for the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to grant the waiver requested for the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Planning Assistant asked if the note added to the plans that stated sprinklers would be installed on all homes for proposed lots of the subdivision was adequate as sprinklers were now mandated by the Town. The Chairman stated that it was.
The Chairman clarified that the lot lines between Tax Map/Lot #’s 10/3 and 10/4 were adjusted to meet the Steep Slopes requirement. He then asked if the easements for the proposed driveways were written in a standard format that would not require additional review by Town Counsel. The Planning Assistant and the Coordinator were unsure. Sam Proctor noted that he had submitted a covenant for the common driveways and a covenant for fire sprinklers along with a blanket covenant that would go on record and a proposed sample deed that would reflect the incorporation of these covenants on each individual deed.
The Chairman asked for clarification on the waiver requests for the Watershed Outline and Drainage Computations, Traffic and Environmental Impact Studies and the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The Coordinator replied that these were checklist items rather than submission items. The Chairman asked if such items would generally be waived in a subdivision of this type. The Coordinator replied that they would.
Travis Daniels MOVED to grant the waivers requested for Watershed Outline and Drainage Computations, Traffic and Environmental Impact Studies, and the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that a site walk was held and raised no issues.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the application of Curtis Hill, LLC, Major
Subdivision, 7 Lots, Location: Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #10/3, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the Major Subdivision Plan of Land for Curtis Hill, LLC for 7 Lots on Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #10/3, 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 driveway easements by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
4. Submission of executed driveway easements, for which the cost of recording at the HCRD
shall be borne by the applicant.
5. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
6. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
7. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be June 01, 2005, confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring 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.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Sam Proctor asked for an explanation of digital plat data. The Coordinator explained that the Subdivision Regulations required that all major subdivisions submit a disk with the plan in order that the Town mapper could easily place it onto the tax maps.
R.J. MOREAU COMMUNITIES, LLC
Conditional Use Permit/Two Wetland Crossing
Crossing Location: Inkberry Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/41-39
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was John Greenwood of R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman thought it appropriate that a portion of the bond security be held back until the spring of 2005 so that it could be confirmed grass was growing at the site. Dave Woodbury asked if $500.00 could be considered an appropriate amount to withhold as this amount was quoted recently for another applicant with the same issue. John Greenwood agreed to the holdback amount.
John Greenwood stated that the As-Built Plan for Lot #6/41-39 now showed an additional culvert to be added on the site. The Coordinator noted that there was an outstanding fee of $77.00 for notice letters that were mailed regarding this hearing.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the construction of two wetland crossings on Inkberry Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-39 by R.J. Moreau Communities and to release the security being held for same subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of $77.00 fee.
2. Completing the remaining site work item: seeding and grass growth in springtime or acceptable time as achieved shall be secured by a $500.00 security. This security shall be held until the owners notify the Planning Board of completion and the conditions are satisfactorily confirmed by a Planning Board member.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 8, 2005
4. Approval of Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Swanson Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-27, for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.
(no copies)
The Chairman commented that the above noted driveway had a steep downward grade at
9.97%. John Greenwood noted that the driveway would be challenging to construct, however, As-Built Plans would be provided. Travis Daniels asked if there would be a turn around area at the base of the driveway so that cars did not have to back all the way up to the road. John Greenwood replied that there was an adequate area to turn around.
Travis Daniels MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #04-104, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-27, 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. As part of the approval it is stipulated that As-Built Plans shall be required by the Board upon the driveway’s completion. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
1. Approval of minutes of January 11, 2004, with or without changes. (Distributed at the January 25, 2004, meeting.)
Travis Daniels MOVED to approve the minutes of January 11, 2004, as written. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of January 25, 2004, were distributed for approval at the February 22, 2005, meeting, with or without changes.
3. Driveway Permit Application for Dana & Joni Haley, Lull Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/85, for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action. (drive by prior to meeting) (no copies)
Dave Woodbury stated that he had driven by the site but could not make a clear determination due to the snow cover. The Planning Assistant stated that James Nordstrom and Bob Furey had also viewed the driveway and both had noted that sight distance toward Route 77 seemed to be a concern. The Chairman asked if the Road Agent had viewed the driveway. The Planning Assistant replied that she was unsure. Dave Woodbury noted that the location and design of the driveway did not seem unreasonable. The Coordinator added that James Nordstrom had said that it appeared the best location had been chosen for the driveway but that sight distance still posed an issue. Travis Daniels thought that trees were currently being cleared at the site and thought that if enough
clearing occurred near the driveway entrance the sight distance issue could be alleviated. Dave Woodbury added that the existing stone wall on the site would also have some effect. He further added that the site appeared to have some wetland issues as well. The Coordinator noted to Dave Woodbury that the poorly drained soil boundary on the site was located behind the proposed construction location for the driveway.
Travis Daniels MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #05-001, Tax Map/Lot #2/85, 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. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5. Discussion, Re: courtesy letters for adjourned hearings.
The Coordinator explained that, historically, courtesy letters have been sent to applicants and abutters upon the adjournment of hearings. She added that this measure required much time and postage and was not required by law. The Coordinator noted that both the Planning Assistant and Building Department Assistant had brought this to her attention and wished to ask the Board if they felt this procedure could be discontinued. Dave Woodbury thought it best to eliminate this procedure because it was not required by law and applicants could mistakenly believe that it was. The Chairman agreed and thought this task should be discontinued as applicants should be able to keep track of their adjourned hearing dates.
6. A copy of a letter received February 2, 2005, from concerned landowners of New Boston, to New Boston Planning Board, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that because the above noted letter was not signed the Board could not properly address it. Dave Woodbury suggested that the Board should at least go on record as stating that they did not have the power to offer the relief the letter requested. The Chairman added that the Board would not offer such relief even if they could as the letter suggested that the draft of the Steep Slopes Ordinance was approved by the Board in a secretive manner which was not the case. The Coordinator noted that certain concerned individuals from the Town had posted a Town land map at Dodges Store which outlined the property that would supposedly be considered worthless if the Steep Slopes Ordinance passed at the March, 2005, Town vote. She added that a petition
coincided with this map. Don Duhaime wondered why this Ordinance had created such uproar so suddenly. The Chairman wondered the same and also questioned how many of these concerned individuals were landowners in the Town versus developers.
7. A copy of a memorandum received February 4, 2005, from the State of New Hampshire, Office of Energy & Planning, to Municipal Land Use Boards, Re: 12th Annual Spring Planning Conference, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman asked that the Coordinator sign him up for the seminars that she felt were appropriate. The Coordinator replied that she would.
8. Read File-Notice of receipt: Letter and disk received February 4, 2005, from the New Hampshire Housing Authority, to the Municipal Offices and Planning Professionals, Re: affordable housing. (disk available in office)
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she had read the above noted file. The
Coordinator replied that she had not yet read the file as it needed to be uploaded onto her computer. She added that she much preferred paper copies of reading materials over disks as they could be read more conveniently.
At 10:35 p.m. Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the
motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien,
Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
| 
