New Boston, NH - Planning Board Minutes 04/12/05

Planning Board Minutes 04/12/05

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

TOWN OF NEW BOSTON

APRIL 12, 2005

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Travis Daniels, Bob Furey; ex-officio Christine Quirk; 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 Roch Larochelle, Willard Dodge, Jay Marden, Bob Todd, LLS, Mike Dahlberg, LLS, Todd Connors, PE, Paul Morin, Frank and Susan Woodward, Dick and Betsy Moody, Kimberly Bean, Susana LeClair, George Hansford, Kerry and Norman LaPointe, Derek Lavigne, Tom Lazott, Brian Holt, Kathy Bradfield, Jane Carr, Rick Martin, Kim DiPietro, Carol Hayse, Richard Herget, Barry Charrest, Kate Fitzpatrick, Pete Shellenberger, Eric Jackson, Brandy Mitroff and Sara Hogan.

KAREN M. MORIN REVOCABLE TRUST

Submission of Application/Public Hearing

Major Subdivision/5 Lots

Location: Greenfield Road

Tax Map/Lot #7/74

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Mike Dahlberg, LLS, Todd Connors, PE, and the applicant Paul Morin. Interested parties present were Frank and Susan Woodward.

Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that there had been no significant changes to the plan since the last meeting with the Board. He added that copies of the road upgrade plan for Greenfield Road were forwarded to the Road Committee which he believed addressed their suggestions for road improvements. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that the upgrades proposed would involve 500 s.f. of impact to nearby wetland pockets. He added that the Conservation Commission had performed a site walk in this area and had no issues. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the applicant would request a waiver for the submission of the Dredge and Fill Permit as it was pending State Approval and took considerable time to process. He explained that if this waiver was granted the plans could be now be forwarded for Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s review. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that all other permits were received and only minor changes were needed to the plan.

The Chairman asked what road improvements the applicant proposed for Greenfield Road. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the improvements involved a 20 foot paved roadway with one foot shoulders on each side. He added that one of the existing culverts on the road would be lowered slightly along with straightening out the roadway and placing fill to lessen the humps which would result in better drainage and eliminate ponding. The Chairman asked what impacts the existing bushes would incur on either side of the road. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the impacts would be right to the existing stone wall on the north side of the road and just short of the wall on the south side which meant that the existing day lilies in that area would need to be transplanted to another location. James Nordstrom asked if the lilies could be transplanted from the north side of the road to the south side which would see lesser impacts from the road improvements. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that there should be some room on the south side of the road to do so. The Chairman asked if this was something the applicant planned on doing. Paul Morin replied that if it was feasible he would transplant the lilies otherwise he would consider replacing the bulbs. The Chairman noted that the lilies were currently on both sides of Greenfield Road. He wondered if transplanting would be a futile effort. Susan Woodward stated that lilies were a hardy flower that should transplant easily. Paul Morin stated that he had no issue with either transplanting or replacing the affected lilies. Susan Woodward asked if the density of lilies would be considered. Paul Morin replied that he would keep the density the same as it was prior to the road upgrades even if the planting area was diminished.

Susan Woodward stated that the existing culvert located between the Cochran Hill Road turn off and her driveway was inadequate as it washed out frequently due to a natural spring that was assumed to be underneath the road. She asked for clarification of the two foot culvert the plan proposed. Todd Connors, PE, replied that the plan proposed that the culvert in question remain intact. Susan Woodward stated that the washout issue would continue. The Chairman asked if the existing culvert would be lowered. Mike Dahlberg replied that was his understanding. Todd Connors, PE, explained that two culverts were considered for Greenfield Road with the one existing near the Greenfield/Cochran Hill Road intersection being replaced and the other existing culvert closer to the Woodward’s driveway being lowered. He added that the Road Committee had recommended 18 inch culverts but that size might have cover issues, therefore, they would opt for two 12 inch culverts or one 18 inch culvert depending on what amount of space they had to work with in that area. Frank Woodward stated that an enormous amount of water ran through that area and that he had seen the culvert near his home replaced many times in the 12+ years he had lived on the road. He added that the Road Agent was very conscientious about replacing the culvert when it washed out, however, the washouts continued and police barriers sometimes became necessary to warn traffic of the resulting flood water. The Chairman asked if it was possible that the culvert was getting plugged. Frank Woodward replied that he had seen instances of the culvert overflowing immediately after the road was graded and regraveled. He reiterated that there was evidence that a natural spring ran under the road and suggested that the engineers for this proposed project consider two culverts further apart in that problem area. Frank Woodward noted that silt from frequent wash outs was in the pond located near the Morgan property and the silt basin was also full. The Chairman asked if the Road Agent had provided any comments on this issue. The Coordinator replied that he had not provided comments in writing but was aware of the problem and was in favor of the installation of one larger culvert rather than two smaller ones for this location. The Chairman asked what the issue of cover for the culverts involved. Todd Connors, PE, replied that Town regulations required at least one foot of cover over a culvert pipe and that two feet was preferred while three feet was considered the optimum depth. He added that currently the plan could only provide just under two feet of cover at this location, therefore, they would see how things progressed and possibly suggest two smaller pipes if necessary while working with the Road Agent on the matter.

Susan Woodward asked if the road would be moved four feet to the north side because the plan proposed an additional four feet of width to the road itself. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, explained that the road would be a paved 20 foot width with one foot shoulders on each side. Susan Woodward stated that she was concerned about the water issue in this case also because the ditchline on the north side of the road could not hold much runoff while the ditchline on the south side was fairly deep and its capacity could be compromised if the road’s location was moved. She noted that if this became the case wetlands could be created on the other side of the existing stone wall. The Chairman suggested that perhaps better grading of the road in contrast to a deeper ditchline was warranted to control runoff and could be addressed on the road plan. Todd Connors, PE, agreed that it was more likely that the size of the culvert and not the shape of the ditch would alleviate drainage issues, therefore, if the pipe gained capacity it could move water to the south side of the road more quickly. The Chairman asked if the existing culvert was considered to be in a low lying spot. Todd Connors, PE, replied that it was. The Chairman stated that if the grade of the road was to be elevated then the ditchline in turn would be raised and not hold as much water. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, added that the existing stone wall was silted in on the south side of the road but could act as a detention basin which would be good for the road. Susan Woodward asked how many feet would be added to the width of the existing road on the south side. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the proposed widths would taper from zero to four feet. Susan Woodward then asked if more gravel would be placed on the south side than the north. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that this would not be the case as the majority of the road upgrade would take place on the north side of the road. Susan Woodward asked if a ditchline along the length of the road would still be required. The Chairman replied that a ditchline would still be necessary to control the drainage flow.

Susan Woodward stated that she was concerned about the amount of turn around traffic increasing once the road was paved. She asked if it would be possible to install a “Not a Through Way” sign at the head of Greenfield Road to discourage curious traffic that might be enticed by new pavement. The Chairman replied that he could not see a way around the existing road not being upgraded with pavement due to maintenance factors. He asked what entity would determine whether or not the suggested sign could be posted. The Coordinator replied that such a sign could not be posted in this case because Greenfield Road was a Class VI roadway. She added that it might be possible to have a sign posted that said “End of Town Maintenance” at the point where the road changed to a Class VI status. James Nordstrom added that Greenfield Road was considered a public right-of-way. Susan Woodward asked if there was any way to discourage the turn around traffic she predicted. Paul Morin suggested that a sign could be placed at the intersection of Greenfield Road and Cochran Hill Road stating that the maintained road ended at 1,200 feet. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that such a sign could be an invitation to four wheel drive trucks. The Chairman stated that increased traffic was an inevitable result of the proposed road upgrade. Susan Woodward asked if rumble strips could be placed on the road to discourage traffic as done on some highways. The Chairman replied that rumble strips could not be installed on Greenfield Road.

Susan Woodward asked how the waivers requested by the applicant affected the proposed plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the waiver was requested to accept the application pending receipt of the Dredge and Fill Permit from the State for the Greenfield Road improvements so that the plan could be forwarded sooner for Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s review. Susan Woodward asked if Dufresne-Henry, Inc., would suggest improving the drainage issue on Greenfield Road. The Chairman replied that the State permit pending would authorize the applicant to dredge and fill the 500 s.f. of impact created by the proposed road plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, explained that the waiver requested was a procedural item in order that the plan could move on to engineering review. The Chairman stated that such waivers were not generally done but noted the validity of the Town Engineer reviewing the drainage issue presented by this plan. Susan Woodward asked if the pond located near the Morgan home would also be impacted by the drainage issue. The Chairman felt this pond would see positive impacts because the improvement project would not be allowed to float silt. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that a silt fence would be installed during construction and that the currently graveled side slopes would be loamed and seeded post construction which would greatly diminish siltation. The Chairman added that this method would improve the current road base in many ways.

James Nordstrom wished to return to the subject of the Dredge and Fill Permit. He noted that while it was typical that the Permit be on file for proposed road construction plans this case concerned offsite road improvements, therefore, he would be agreeable to granting the waiver requested in order to move the plan forward for engineering review. Bob Furey thought this seemed reasonable. The other members of the Board were also in agreement.

The Chairman asked if there were any other outstanding issues on the plan. The Coordinator replied that the road name still needed to be approved by the Selectmen. She added that although a legal description had been submitted, a Warranty Deed draft still needed to be prepared for Town Counsel’s review. The Coordinator further added that waivers had been requested for various studies. She noted that the Board should clarify that items on the Stormwater Management Plan fulfilled all their requirements. The Chairman asked if the Steep Slopes Ordinance had been accurately applied to the plan. The Coordinator replied that it had. Christine Quirk asked the length of the proposed cul-de-sac. After consulting with Todd Connors, PE, Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the length from the centerline of Greenfield Road to the beginning of the cul-de-sac was 1,025 feet. James Nordstrom noted that the applicant would need to request an additional waiver for this length unless 25 feet could be removed from that total. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that Todd Connors, PE, had prepared a written request to submit to the Board tonight. Todd Connors, PE, stated that this waiver request dealt with road standards discussed at the prior meeting which included a road width of 20 feet with 1 foot shoulders on either side, tangent length between reverse curves and road embankments of 3:1 and 2:1 side slopes which were noted on the plan. He explained that station #400 on the plan required more fill than other locations, therefore, 2:1 side slopes with erosion control matting were proposed. Regarding the tangent length, Todd Connors, PE, explained that a change was made to the plan following the last meeting because the 60 foot tangent length between two 100 foot reverse curves seemed too abrupt. He added that two 300 foot reverse curves were now proposed with no tangent in between to create a smoother transition. Todd Connors, PE, noted that this was the only change made to the plan since the last meeting with the Board.

Frank Woodward asked how the proposed road width affected existing trees and utility poles along the roadside. Todd Connors, PE, replied that two poles near the culverts would need to be reset and that one pole inside and another just outside the proposed edge of pavement would need to be relocated because they were too close to this boundary. He added that the culvert locations did not involve areas with a lot of trees and the case was the same for locations just outside of the proposed shoulders on the higher side of the road. Todd Connors, PE, noted that some tree removal would be necessary on the opposite side due to grading. He added that trees near the existing stone wall would remain intact. Frank Woodward asked if any trees on the south side of the road would need to be removed. Todd Connors, PE, replied that he did not think there were any large trees in that location that would need to be removed but would confirm that. Susan Woodward asked if Todd Connors, PE, could notify them when he was on the site to do this. Todd Connors, PE, replied that he would do so.

Bob Furey asked if the Stormwater Management Plan submitted by the applicant in the preliminary phase of the application considered the issues of Greenfield Road. Todd Connors, PE, replied that the preliminary Stormwater Management Plan was still accurate considering the road upgrades proposed. Bob Furey asked if this Plan accounted for upgrades proposed to Greenfield Road. Todd Connors, PE, replied that it did not as this was considered an improvement to Greenfield Road’s current drainage situation. Bob Furey stated that he agreed that a lot could not be done on the plan regarding treatment design but thought that a silt fence should be considered for that stretch of road, therefore, not so much an analysis but an addition to the plan. Todd Connors, PE, stated that he would make sure this was addressed on the plan. The Chairman noted that the existing silt basin should also be considered as it could require cleaning if utilized. Todd Connors, PE, stated this would also be addressed.

The Chairman clarified that the applicant wished to have the plan forwarded to Dufresne-Henry, Inc., at this point for review. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied this was the case. James Nordstrom stated that he had no issue with granting the waivers requested by the applicant which would then make the application complete and able to be forwarded to the Town Engineer for review. He asked the Coordinator if there were any fees outstanding for the application. The Coordinator replied there were not.

James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the waivers requested in the letter dated April 12, 2005, by Sublime Civil Consultants, for a cul-de-sac length of 1,025 feet, proposed pavement width and gravel shoulders for Greenfield Road, tangent lengths and side slopes ranging between 3:1 and 2:1 and also to grant the waiver request in a letter dated February 17, 2005, relative to the submission of a Dredge and Fill Permit for Greenfield Road improvements. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

The Coordinator stated that waivers were also requested for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies and that the road name approval was not yet complete. The Chairman asked if these outstanding items prevented the application from being complete. The Coordinator replied that was the case. Paul Morin stated that an official request had been submitted to the Selectmen two weeks prior regarding the road name approval. Christine Quirk stated that this item had not yet been posted on the agenda of the Selectmen. James Nordstrom asked if this could detain the acceptance of the application. The Coordinator replied that it could but a waiver could be requested. James Nordstrom recalled that at a prior hearing a possible analysis of traffic at the intersection of Greenfield and Cochran Hill Road was discussed. The Chairman stated that this discussion did occur, however, because no more subdivisions would be allowed in this area after this one it was decided that the requirement for a Traffic Impact Study could be relaxed. James Nordstrom stated that the applicant could make a verbal waiver request for the submittal of the approved road name. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, then made this request.

James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the waivers requested in the letter dated February 17, 2005, by Mike Dahlberg, LLS, for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies and also to accept the waiver request for an extension on the submittal of the road name per the Board of Selectmen’s approval. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Karen M. Morin Revocable Trust, Major Subdivision, 5 Lots, Location: Greenfield Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/74, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Karen M. Morin Revocable Trust, Major Subdivision, 5 Lots, Location: Greenfield Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/74, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to May 24, 2005, at 8:00 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

SUSANA LECLAIR REVOCABLE TRUST

Submission of Application/Public Hearing

Major Subdivision/5 Lots

Location: Bedford Road

Tax Map/Lot #9/24

Residential-Agricultural “ R-A” District

The Chairmen read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Mike Dahlberg, LLS, who represented the applicant, Susana LeClair, who was also present. Abutters and interested parties present were Kimberly Bean, George Hansford, Kerry and Norman LaPointe, Tom Lazott and Dick and Betsy Moody.

Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the plan had received State Subdivision Approval and the wetlands approval was pending a site walk for two minor wetland crossings. Other issues had been addressed with DES. He added that the applicant wished to request a waiver on the submission of the pending Dredge and Fill Permit as was done for the Morin application. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that the Conservation Commission had walked the wetlands and that State Subdivision Approval was granted for Lot #’s 9/24-14 and 9/24-11 which were under five acres.

He added that a drafting error in the notes section was corrected and resubmitted to the Planning Department. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that while the majority of the lots for the proposed subdivision were within 2,200 feet of a cistern located on Bedford Road, Lot #’s 9/24-14 and 9/24-15 fell outside of that range, therefore, all the homes of the subdivision were required to be installed with fire sprinkler systems. He noted that a sample deed and Declaration of Covenants had been submitted and that the Steep Slopes Ordinance had been applied to the plan with all lots exceeding the minimum 1.5 acres of contiguous flatland.

Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the applicant currently resided on the property. He added that Lot #’s 9/24-1 and 9/24-2 were previously subdivided and the applicant now sought to complete the subdivision. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that all proposed lots fronted on existing roads, therefore, no new roads were proposed on the plan. The Chairman commented that he would prefer to see the plan colorized to denote wetlands and buildable areas. Bob Furey asked if a lot line on the plan had changed for the proposed lot fronting on Baker Lane. He then asked if Baker Lane ran north to south. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the issue concerned the uncertainty of where Baker Lane ended which resulted in one of two proposed lots on Baker Lane qualifying as a backlot. He explained that these two lots were then consolidated into one front lot because the Board had previously opposed this backlot.

The Chairman asked Mike Dahlberg, LLS, to trace the outline of the wetlands on the plan with a blue marker provided by the Planning Assistant. Once this was done the Chairman commented on the vast amount of wetlands on the plan. He stated that the 200 foot square for one lot sat partially in wetlands but noted this was allowable. The Chairman asked if there were any other backlots proposed on the plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied there were two backlots proposed and noted their locations. The Chairman asked if the Dredge and Fill Permit was required for the driveways of these proposed backlots. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that was the case as perpetual wetlands existed in this location along with isolated pockets of poorly drained soils. He added that the previous subdivision design had included access to Lot #9/24-? From Wilson Hill Road which would result in approximately 6,000 to 7,000 square feet of wetland impact so that lot had been reworked to access off Bedford Road. The Chairman noted that this backlot seemed to skirt the existing wetlands. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, agreed.

The Chairman asked what types of slopes were on the property. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the slopes ran up and down across the property. Bob Furey asked if there were two different types of cross hatches used on the plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied there was only one cross hatch which represented slopes greater than 25%. The Chairman commented that this seemed a difficult site to build upon given the existing steep slopes and wetlands. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that an existing woods road on the property would minimize disturbance for driveway construction and that moderate slopes were present in the proposed building locations. The Chairman asked that building envelopes be provided on the plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that this would be done per the Board’s request. The Coordinator asked if there were any slopes on the site that were in the 15% to 25% range. Mike Dahlberg, LS, replied there were not.

The Chairman asked for a justification of the waiver for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that erosion and sediment control plans were shown for the area of the two wetland crossings and the remainder of the proposed construction was situated far enough away from the wetlands. The Chairman thought that the amount of wetlands and slopes on the site in conjunction with potential impacts presented could warrant the justification for a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Bob Furey and James Nordstrom agreed. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that he had attached a copy from the Wetlands Board’s website which noted the pending field inspection of the site as the only remaining item for Dredge and Fill approval.

The Chairman clarified that five new lots were proposed and asked how many driveways were proposed off Bedford Road. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that two new driveways were proposed off Bedford Road, one off Wilson Hill Road and one off Baker Lane. The Chairman stated that based on that information he understood the reasoning behind the waiver request for the Traffic Impact Study. James Nordstrom stated that he had no issue with granting the waiver request for the Traffic Impact Study, however, based on the rationale given for the same request by the Morin applicant earlier this evening, this plan’s Dredge and Fill Permit was required for lot development versus the Morin plan’s offsite improvements, therefore, he could not justify granting that waiver.

James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the waiver request for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

The Chairman asked if the proposed subdivision would disturb any steep slopes. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied it would not. The Coordinator asked if the contiguous use calculation was applied equally to all the proposed lots because the plan seemed to suggest that contiguous upland area was the same as contiguous flatland area. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that when the contiguous use calculation included sheer uplands it did not include wetlands on the lot, however, when no steep slopes were present on a lot wetlands were factored in. James Nordstrom wished to confirm that Mike Dahlberg, LLS, was not doing double deductions. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied he was not.

A site walk was scheduled for April 20, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. Mike Dahlberg asked what the Board would wish to see flagged on site. The Chairman replied that flagging for the proposed building envelopes and centerlines of driveways was preferred. He added that he assumed the wetlands were already flagged. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that they were.

Abutter Dick Moody stated that his notice letter referenced 6 lots, not 5. The Coordinator stated that was an office error that would be corrected. The Chairman noted that no action would be taken tonight on this application anyway and that new notice letters would be sent to abutters.

Abutter Dick Moody noted that a year round brook flowed in the area of one proposed house lot where steep slopes also existed. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the house for that lot would be constructed considerably south of that area. The Chairman explained that this was one reason why building envelopes would be a requirement for this plan. Dick Moody then noted that the proposed driveway for Lot #_____ took a right angle turn beyond the end of old Bedford Road. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, explained that this design was necessary in order to skirt the driveway around Town owned property.

Abutter Kimberly Bean asked where the water flow would go in areas of proposed filling. The Chairman explained that filling could not occur without a State Permit which the plan was also required to address. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, added that once this area was filled culverts would be installed to facilitate drainage. Kimberly Bean noted that her neighbor’s driveway already suffered from water runoff issues. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the plan would support the current drainage patterns by aligning culverts with those existing. The Chairman clarified that the drainage situation on abutting properties would be made no worse or better by the implementation of this plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that was the case.

Abutter George Hansford inquired about the dual flagging of one proposed driveway. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, explained that the two roped sections dealt with survey flagging.

Abutter Kerry LaPointe stated that the Board, on their site walk, should consider viewing a brook that skirted the Reed property on the western side of the site running to the opposite side of Bedford Road.

Abutter Tom Lazott asked the location of Lot #9/24-14’s proposed driveway in relation to his own on the opposite side of Bedford Road. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted the location of this driveway on the plan. Dick Moody asked if the proposed driveway for Lot #9/24-14 would have sight distance issues. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that it would not as its entrance would be on a crest and offer sight distance of approximately 700 to 800 feet to the west. The Chairman noted that such items would be clarified on the site walk.

James Nordstrom clarified that the application had been submitted for acceptance and the Board would be adjourning this acceptance to another scheduled hearing. The Chairman replied that was correct.

James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Susana LeClair Revocable Trust, Major Subdivision, 5 Lots, Location: Bedford Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/24, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to May 24, 2005, at 8:30 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

THIBEAULT CORPORATION Adjourned from 2/22/05

Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision/Inkberry Road

Location: Byam Road

Tax Map/Lot #6/41

Residential Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Brian Holt of Thibeault Corporation. An abutter present was Kathy Bradfield.

THIBEAULT, cont.

Brian Holt stated that two sets of As Built Plans had been submitted with an additional copy provided to Bill Rossignol. He added that the Drainage and Maintenance Deed was still being worked by Andy Sullivan, Esq., and that its terms would be finalized by R.J. Moreau working in conjunction with the Board. Brian Holt then submitted the approved Warranty Deed for Inkberry Road along with easement deeds for the treatment swales on the site.

Brian Holt stated that he had spoken with Reggie Moreau who clarified that the driveway entrance to Tax Map/Lot #6/45 would be blocked. James Nordstrom asked if the driveway would be blocked indefinitely. Brian Holt replied that the driveway’s entrance would be blocked until the time that Lot #6/45 was further developed. He added that the downed stop sign at the intersection of Inkberry Road and Byam Road would be repaired. James Nordstrom noted that this stop sign had been on the ground for several months. Brian Holt then stated that Tax Map/Lot #6/41-41’s driveway would need to be graded this spring which was why money had been held aside in the bond. He noted that the site was stabilized and grass was growing with no erosion issues. The Chairman commented that the site looked very good after the recent storms. He added that the silt pond across from the Byam house no longer existed and asked where the drainage flow had gone. Brian Holt replied that it had most likely succumbed to the establishment of controlled structures on site to alleviate erosion. He added that a drainage problem used to exist at the first entrance onto Inkberry Road from Byam Road which was now gone for the same reasons. Brian Holt further added that this involved introducing stabilization controls as quickly as possible in the development process.

The Coordinator stated that there were no outstanding issues. She added that because the Driveway Permit for Lot #6/45 had never been approved the guard rails and other safety factors for the driveway would need to be considered when the Lot was developed and the Driveway Permit came before the Board at a future date. James Nordstrom asked if the unapproved Driveway Permit presented a procedural problem and noted that if the application was in an earlier subdivision phase the Board could not accept it. He explained that in this case the Board was being asked to accept the road of the subdivision with one Driveway Permit outstanding. The Coordinator explained that the Driveway Permit for Lot #6/41-45 had been submitted a long time ago and, therefore, this issue could be handled as a condition of acceptance by the Board. James Nordstrom clarified that the Board could render compliance of the road upon the condition that the driveway entrance to Lot #6/45 was blocked until an acceptable Driveway Permit was issued. The Chairman was in agreement.

James Nordstrom asked if $5K should be held back from the original bond or be considered separately to cover work to the remaining issues on the site. The Coordinator replied that the applicant could choose whatever was preferred. Brian Holt stated that he had discussed a reduction of the current bond with John Riendeau, Road Agent, and Bill Rossignol which was what the applicant preferred. James Nordstrom commented that the Town would prefer this also.

Abutter Kathy Bradfield asked if a time frame for clean up of the silt fence screening on her property was being considered. Brian Holt explained that now that the abutting five acre lot was approved the silt screen would need to be removed if it was in fact on Kathy Bradfield’s property. Kathy Bradfield asked what the exact time frame for its removal would be. Brian Holt replied that he thought the screening could be removed within 30 days, weather permitting. The Chairman agreed that weather was an important factor. Brian Holt added that although the silt fencing on Kathy Bradfield’s property was slated to be removed a similar structure would be needed for the abutting five acre lot throughout its development. He noted that silt fencing would be removed once the lot sold, the driveway constructed and the existing loam pile removed which he predicted to be within one year. Kathy Bradfield stated that two years was a long time to look at a silt fence which she considered an eyesore. The Chairman explained that a silt fence was necessary as long as the loam pile remained on the site for erosion control measures. He added that he did not feel it would be another year before the five acre lot sold and construction was completed. The Chairman clarified that the silt fence on Kathy Bradfield’s property would be removed as soon as possible. Brian Holt stated that the silt fencing would now need to be placed on the applicant’s property.

Kathy Bradfield noted that a driveway was partially paved on a nearby lot and clarified that two additional lots were being developed. Brian Holt replied that Lot #6/41-39 was located on the right side of Inkberry Road as well as Lot #6/41-41. He added that the loam pile in question would most likely be trucked off the site but could also be used for development of these lots. Kathy Bradfield asked if the loam pile could be moved before the lots were sold. Brian Holt replied that it would be moved as soon as possible but could not give a definite time frame. An interested party, Jay Marden, commented that the loam could be used for fill on the Town cemetery project.

James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Major Subdivision/54 Lots of Tax Map/Lot #6/41, Inkberry Road, subject to:

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:

1. Submission of fees to record the deeds at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds. The remaining site work items as listed in Bill Rossignol, Holden Engineering’s, letter of December 27, 2004, shall be secured with a $5,000 security that shall be held from the road construction bond. This security shall be held until the

conditions are confirmed as satisfactorily completed by Holden Engineering,

the Road Agent and consensus of the Planning Board, by no later than June 15, 2005. Christine Quirk seconded the motion.

James Nordstrom amended the motion to add the condition that Lot # 6/41-45’s

entrance be blocked off satisfactorily and the barricade not removed until the

Driveway Permit Application for the lot is approved. Christine Quirk seconded the amended motion and it PASSED unanimously.

CARR, JANE Adjourned from 2/22/05

Public Hearing/Site Plan Review/Gift Shop Home Business

Location: 120 Christie Road

Tax Map/Lot #9/43

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant, Jane Carr. No abutters or interested parties were present.

The Chairman stated that the plan seemed to be in order. He asked the Board if they had any concerns as a result of the site walk held on the property and there were none.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the site plan for Jane Carr, to operate a gift shop

home business from 834 s.f. of the existing barn/garage at 120 Christie Road, Tax

Map/Lot #9/43. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

The Chairman reminded Jane Carr that she would need to contact the Building Inspector if she wished to install signage on her property for her home business. The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the site plan.

LYONS, SUSAN & DAVID Adjourned from 2/22/05

Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/2 Lots

Location: Laurel Lane

Tax Map/Lot #12/106

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, who represented the applicant.

Bob Todd, LLS, stated that no changes were made to the plan since the previous meeting with the Board. He added that at that meeting the application had been accepted as complete and waivers had been granted by the Board. Bob Todd, LLS, further added that a site walk had been held with members of the Board at which time the driveway for the backlot was viewed along with two wetland crossings. He noted that Town Counsel had suggested rewording the driveway easement to include a 560 s.f area of curb cut identified for dual maintenance by future lot owners with the remainder of the easement exclusive and not mutual. The Chairman asked Bob Todd, LLS, to point out the lot lines on the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, noted these locations. The Chairman clarified that the existing driveway that would service the backlot ran along the lot line for the proposed front lot. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that was the case. He added that the applicant proposed to sell one lot and construct a home on the remaining Lot #12/106-1 which he would use as a seasonal residence. The Chairman clarified that the applicant would rather have the newly subdivided Lot #12/106-1 encumbered by an easement that construct a new driveway. which was his prerogative. James Nordstrom asked if the revised Driveway Easement was submitted. The Coordinator replied that it was received at the Planning Department on April 8,2005, and was forwarded to Town Counsel on April 11, 2005. James Nordstrom thought that Town Counsel may have been unclear of the applicant’s intent regarding the proposed common driveway which was why he rendered the advice he did. He added that he did not foresee Bill Drescher, Esq., having any issue with the wording of the revised easement language and suggested that it could be listed in the conditions precedent if the application was to be approved this evening.

James Nordstrom asked for clarification on the drill hole and offset granite bound for Lot #12/106. The Coordinator explained that a granite bound had been offset due to an existing stone wall on the lot, however, there was no drill hole in the wall. She asked Bob Todd, LLS, if he knew why this was the case. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he was unsure. James Nordstrom commented that the existing wall had many corners and asked if the plans indicated a drill hole for the granite bound. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the plan specified a detailed measurement from the granite bound to the stone wall. James Nordstrom stated that he recalled a similar situation on a plan where a drill hole was placed in an existing stone wall with an offset. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the drill hole may not have been placed in the stone wall on this plan because the stones were very small and the wall could be unstable. James Nordstrom stated that for purposes related to the deed and layout the plan did indicate adequate dimensions.

The Coordinator asked if the plan noted that fire sprinklers would be installed in homes constructed on the lots because it was recommended or required. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he thought this note was required due to the posting of the related ordinance for ballot vote. The Coordinator explained that because that ordinance did not pass the Town vote this item would be the applicant’s choice. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that given that information he was sure the applicant would wish to eliminate this note from the plan.

The Chairman clarified that the Board was awaiting Town Counsel’s opinion regarding the easement language for the driveway plan. The Coordinator replied that was correct. James Nordstrom asked if the construction estimate was submitted. The Coordinator replied that the amount was submitted as $20,992. James Nordstrom suggested that the amount be rounded to $21,000.

James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of David Lyons and Susan Charest-Lyons, Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Laurel Lane, Tax Map/Lot #12/106, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete, and to grant the Conditional Use

Permit and approve the plans of David L. Lyons and Susan R. Charest-Lyons to dredge and fill 4,460 s.f. of poorly drained soils for the construction of a driveway on property on Laurel Lane, known as Tax Map/Lot #12/106 as the four conditions for granting the Permit have been found to exist, subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:

1. Submission of the financial security in the amount of $21,000.00 and in a form acceptable to the Planning Board.

2. Any revisions to the site plan as decided by the Board at the hearing (if

applicable). The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be June 1, 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. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:

1. Completion of the site improvements as related to the filling of 4,460 s.f. of

poorly drained soils for driveway construction, as shown on the approved

construction design plan.

2. The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon notification to the Planning Department by the applicant that the project has been

completed and a compliance hearing is held and confirms that the project has been satisfactorily completed by no later than September 1, 2005. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision, Land of David L. Lyons

and Susan R. Charest-Lyons, Tax Map/Lot #12/106, Laurel Lane, subject to:

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:

1. Submission of a minimum of four blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,

including all checklist corrections, notes of waivers granted and any corrections noted at this hearing;

2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.

3. Approval of the Warranty Deed containing driveway easement language by Town Counsel, the cost of said review to be borne by the applicant.

4. Submission of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application or

recording of documents at the HCRD.

The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be June 1, 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. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #’s 05-001 and 05-

006, Tax Map/Lot #12/106, for proposed driveway, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: 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. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

The Planning Board then took a five minute break.

PALMER, JOHN & HEIDI Adjourned from 02/22/05

Public Hearing/Minor Subdivision/2 Lots

Location: Hooper Hill Road

Tax Map/Lot #11/18

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, who represented the applicants. No abutters or interested parties were present.

Bob Todd, LLS, stated that there had been no changes made to the plan and that he believed there were no outstanding issues with the application which was accepted as complete by the Board at the last meeting. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if any outstanding items remained on the plan. The Coordinator asked Mr. Todd, LLS, if he intended to remove the note on the plan that referenced the installation of fire sprinklers for proposed homes on the lots as this stipulation was no longer required. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this note would be removed.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #05-002, Tax Map/Lot #11/18, 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. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision, Land of Heidimarie and

John W.E. Palmer, Tax Map/Lot #11/18, Hooper Hill Road, subject to:

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:

1. Submission of a minimum of four blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,

including all checklist corrections, notes of waivers granted and any corrections noted at this hearing.

2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.

3. Submission of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application or

recording of documents at the HCRD.

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. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

RIGHT WAY BUILDERS

Public Hearing/Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment

Location: Beard Road

Tax Map/Lot #5/52 & 5/52-1

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, and Rick Martin, President of Right Way Builders. No abutters were in attendance. Interested parties present were Willard Dodge and Kim DiPietro.

Bob Todd, LLS, first noted the color key on the plan which identified area of backlot, open land or fields and forested lands. He stated the applicant had previously proposed one residential lot subdivided from the parent lot which would be reduced to 24.6 acres. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the proposed lot line adjustment would not necessitate moving the well or planned building location on the lot. He explained that while the applicant had originally planned to keep Lot #5/52-1 out of the scope of the proposed retirement community project he was now considering it as the site of the model home for that subdivision. Rick Martin added that he currently was undecided regarding this option. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that because a home site may now infringe upon the access way of the existing bridle path that ran through the former Sizemore land the Piscataquog Trailway Association may wish to contact the Townes for a possible easement to facilitate access of that trail. He noted that erosion problems existed on the trail with deep gullies that needed attention.

The Chairman asked if the site was staked. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was staked along the road. Willard Dodge recalled that previous discussions with the applicant suggested that a covenant might be provided that would prevent all terrain vehicles from using the bridle path/hiking trail which connected to the 4H fairgrounds. He asked if this was still a consideration. Rick Martin replied that it was addressed and would be submitted with his completed application. Willard Dodge asked if the applicant still retained ownership of the land on the low side of property below the Towne land. Rick Martin replied that he did. James Nordstrom asked if anyone had spoken with the Townes regarding the hiking trail. Kim DiPietro of the Piscataquog Trailways Association replied that she had postponed speaking with the Townes until it was clear what the applicant would choose to do about the trail access. She asked if the Association could at least have access to the trail by way of the applicant’s land to access the fairgounds for two trail rides scheduled this summer. Rick Martin replied that he had no issue with that request and was willing to continue working with the Association after that as his project progressed. He noted that the trail would be surrounded by conservation land, therefore, it would be appropriate to include the Conservation Commission in future discussions regarding the trail’s ultimate location.

The Chairman asked if a site walk was necessary. James Nordstrom replied that he was familiar with this site and was, therefore, not compelled to do a site walk. The Chairman agreed and added that he had no major concerns that would warrant a site walk. Bob Furey asked if a site walk had been done on the abutting land proposed for the applicant’s future subdivision. James Nordstrom replied that a site walk had not yet been held but that in May of 2004, the north western portion of that property was viewed. Bob Furey stated that he had not viewed any of these sites, however, was not concerned about holding a site walk if the Chairman and James Nordstrom were familiar with the property.

The Chairman asked if there were any outstanding issues. The Coordinator replied there were not. James Nordstrom asked if there were any implications to this application if Lot #5/52-1 was to be subject to the same covenants as the remainder lot. The Coordinator replied that if the applicant kept the land he could do as he wished in that regard. The Chairman asked if fire sprinklers were proposed for the lots. Rick Martin replied that this plan required the installation of fire sprinklers because it was considered a Major Subdivision. Bob Furey noted that there had been discussion regarding the option of driveway access off the road of the applicant’s other proposed subdivision. He asked if this was still being considered or if the driveway would remain in its currently proposed location. Rick Martin replied that the driveway would parallel the existing bridle path/hiking trail. James Nordstrom asked Rick Martin if he was willing to keep access to that trail open through June, 2005, for the scheduled trail rides of the Piscataquog Trailway Association. Rick Martin replied that he was. He added that the trail ride could also come up through the field on the site but he would guarantee their access and resolve this issue with the Townes input as soon as possible. Kim DiPietro stated she was pleased that Mr. Martin would grant this access as the advertisements had already gone out for the rides and more than 100 people were expected to attend. James Nordstrom asked if the plan should include a note regarding the access agreement. The Chairman replied that he would rather not have an expiring agreement on the plan. Rick Martin stated that he may be able to resolve this situation with the Townes promptly and it may be possible for the trail to travel alongside the cornfield on their property. The Chairman stated that he was comfortable with Mr. Martin’s promise to allow the Association access for now.

The Coordinator wished to clarify the tail portion of land on Lot #5/52-1 that was added so that the lot met the 5 acre requirement for a backlot. She noted that the 50 foot setback from the proposed road could not be placed at the narrowest point as the tail was not 50 feet deep and asked the Board if this scenario would satisfy their requirements. James Nordstrom replied that he would like to see the tail removed but knew that it was required for this acreage calculation. Rick Martin noted that he had spoken with the Conservation Commission regarding this tail of land and they said they had no use for it as part of the open space plan for his major subdivision. Bob Todd, LLS, added that there were several examples of open space where the Conservation Commission had no interest for easements. The Coordinator noted that there was a perfectly buildable area in the main portion of the lot for a house and its utilities.

Travis Daniels MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Right Way Builders, Inc., for Tax Map/Lot #5/52 & 5/52-1, Beard Road, subject

to:

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:

1. Submission of a minimum of four blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,

including all checklist corrections, notes of waivers granted and any corrections noted at this hearing;

2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.

3. Review of Declaration of Covenants and Sample Deed Language regarding

sprinkler systems by Town Counsel (if necessary), the cost of said review to be borne by the applicant.

4. Submission of executed Declaration of Covenants regarding sprinkler

systems for recording at the HCRD. (if necessary.)

5. Submission of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application or

recording of documents at the HCRD.

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. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2005

1. Approval of minutes of February 22, 2005, with or without changes. (Distributed at the March 22, 2005, meeting.)

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of February 22 2005, as written.

Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

2. The minutes of March 22, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of April

26, 2005, with or without changes.

3. Discussion, Re: Common Driveway for Daniel Donovan, Bedford Road, Tax Map/Lot

#9/63.

The Coordinator explained that Dan Donovan planned to use the existing driveway of his residence as an access to his proposed medical facility rather than put a driveway to the backlot that ran over an existing causeway. The Chairman noted that Daniel Donovan had previously established that an additional driveway was feasible off Bedford Road, however, the scenario described would eliminate an additional curb cut and would most likely appeal to abutters as it would reinforce the applicant’s theory that the traffic generated by the medical facility would be minimal. The Coordinator noted that the driveway of Daniel Donovan’s residence was in closer proximity to Wilson Hill Road which had sight distance issues. She added that the Board may want to do a site walk on that area before rendering a decision. The Chairman stated that if sight distance was found to be satisfactory he would have no issue with this scenario, conceptually. James Nordstrom asked if, procedurally, Daniel Donovan would still be required to apply for a driveway over the existing causeway. The Coordinator replied that this had been a requirement in order to apply for the subdivision. The Chairman thought that a drive-by of the area would suffice. The Coordinator stated that she could let Daniel Donovan know that the Board may be turning around in his driveway.

James Nordstrom stated that Daniel Donovan had previously made it clear that he should not be required to go through the Site Plan Approval process for his proposed hospital. The Chairman thought that this would be a requirement. James Nordstrom added that Mr. Donovan had a compelling case in his favor with the precedent set by the existing facility and predicted that conflicts would occur as his application progressed. He added that he was curious about other opinions, as, given the Federal mandate in place, Mr. Donovan could still comply with local regulations. The Chairman stated that although he did not foresee any major issues with the application he felt that Site Plan Review was a necessary step. He asked the Coordinator to relay this to Mr. Donovan and add that it was the Board’s consensus.

4. A copy of a letter received March 30, 2005, from Louis Nixon, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: rescheduling of site walk before next meeting of May 10^th, was distributed for the Board’s action.

A site walk was scheduled for April 27, 2005, at 6:30 p.m.

5. A copy of a letter received April 1, 2005, from Carol Hayse and Richard Herget, to

Planning Board, Re: Request for waiver to amend site plan, was distributed for the

Board’s review and discussion.

Because abutters and interested parties were expected to attend at the scheduled time for Miscellaneous Business of 10:30 p.m. it was decided to postpone the discussion of this item until then.

6. A copy of a letter received March 29, 2005, from Allyn Way-Daly, Sweet Comfort Farm, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: home based business at 225 McCurdy Road, was

distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

The Coordinator explained that the above noted letter was inquiring as to whether installing the proposed business required a Site Plan Review. She added that the four standard criteria to omit this requirement were: no employees, no customers, no sign and no exterior storage. She noted that the letter stated that a sign would be installed which could cause a problem. James Nordstrom stated that if a business was intended the Board was responsible to inform the party that Zoning Regulations required a Site Plan Review. The Chairman stated that the farm sold jams, jellies and baked items and took web-based orders and special orders but serviced no customers on the site. He suggested that the owners could either creatively identify their mailbox or participate in a Farm Site Plan Review which was specifically streamlined. The Board asked that the Coordinator send the standard letter not requiring Site Plan Review at this time as long as any sign on the property was for identification purposes and not advertising.

7. Driveway Permit Application for M. Lake Grenier, 141 Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/44, for the Board’s action. (Drive-by prior to meeting)

James Nordstrom stated that he saw no issues with the above noted driveway as the original driveway of the residence was being restored to pre-driveway conditions.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #’s 05-009, Tax

Map/Lot #5/44, for proposed driveway, with the Standard Planning Board

Requirements: 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. The existing driveway shall be removed and restored to pre-driveway conditions. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

8. Endorsement of a Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Alexander and Winfield Shaw Clark, Joe English & Lewis Roads, Tax Map/Lot #11/113 & 11/117.

The Board postponed the endorsement of this item to the end of tonight’s meeting.

10. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Carolyn H. Mohan, Mont Vernon Road, Tax

Map/Lot #14/84.

The Board postponed the endorsement of this item to the end of tonight’s meeting.

9. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Curtis Hill, LLC, Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot

#10/3.

The Coordinator explained that because Curtis Hill, LLC, still required a waiver the above noted Subdivision Plan could not be endorsed at this time.

11. Discussion re: Steep Slopes Sub-Committee.

The Coordinator stated that all previous members of the Committee were interested in continuing on as members: Willard Dodge, Brandy Mitroff, Kim Burkhamer, Bill Weston and Christine Pedzik, and would work together with members of the “Concerned Land Owners of New Boston”, Mitch Larochelle, Dave Elliot, Roger Noonan and Dan Teague if the Board approved those members. She added that only a few meetings should be required to work on amendments followed by Public Input Sessions scheduled to be scheduled in September, 2005. The Chairman asked if the Board would be updated on the Committee’s progress on a regular basis. The Coordinator replied that they would be. She added that the first meeting was scheduled for Thursday, April 14, 2005, and would be an organizational meeting to decide upon dates, etc. The Chairman asked if minutes would be taken at these meetings. Willard Dodge replied that they would and that a chairperson and recording secretary would be elected. James Nordstrom noted that he would be unable to attend this Thursday’s Committee meeting. Willard Dodge asked if the Board could make a motion to officially accept the Committee.

James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the previously mentioned names as members of the Steep Slopes Committee. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSEDunanimously.

12. Discussion re: Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

James Nordstrom and Bob Furey stated that they had reviewed the Subdivision

Regulations pertaining to the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan which suggested that the Plan should be implemented at 20,000 s.f. of impact or greater among other criteria. James Nordstrom stated that this issue had been surfacing for some time where a developer would argue that they could not predict what type of erosion would occur before knowing the final development plan for proposed lots. He added that although he could appreciate this rationale a method of dealing with it must be reached. James Nordstrom added that the LeClair subdivision application was a good example of a plan that should have this requirement due to the terrain, wetlands and the proximity of proposed driveways to those wetlands. He added that, in contrast, it was difficult to decide what should be done for subdivisions that did not present such criteria and whose house locations may ultimately be different that was presented in preliminary phases of an application. James Nordstrom wondered if the Building Department or the Town Engineer should be the enforcing entity for erosion control measures. He surmised that the Building Inspector might not want this added task, therefore, it was futile to devise such a plan if no mechanism to enforce it was in place. Bob Furey asked if Planning Board members could be the enforcers. The Coordinator noted that this was a legal question but added that Board members were already very busy. Bob Furey wondered if drive-by viewings would suffice. From the audience, Pete Shellenberger asked what triggered the Building Inspector to visit a site regarding enforcement issues. The Chairman replied that a reported complaint or random observation could warrant such an inspection and depending on the time of day either the Building Inspector or Town Administrator might visit a questionable site.

The Board thought that the Coordinator’s suggestion that she prepare a checklist of plan requirements for their review was a good one.

14. A copy of a workshop announcement from Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission for April 8, 2005, Re: Regional Roundtable, was distributed for the Board’s information.

15. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from City of Concord for April 20, 2005. Re:

installation of a telecommunications tower, for the Board’s information.

16. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from Town of Bow for April 19, 2005. Re:

installation of antennas, for the Board’s information.

17. The Planning Assistant stated that the School Board had granted an easement over the Central School’s roadway to the Willards at their meeting this evening so that access was possible to the proposed preschool at 20 River Road. She added that the Road Agent wanted a gate installed at the rear entrance of the proposed preschool so that it could not be used as a through way during hours of non operation.

Christine Quirk recused herself from the Board as her Miscellaneous Business item was next.

13. A copy of a letter dated April 12, 2005, from Christine Quirk, Friendly Beaver

Campground, to the Board, Re: Beaver Hut Café, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

The Chairman read the above noted letter aloud which requested that the Beaver Hut Café located at the Friendly Beaver Campground be allowed to service the public for breakfast and lunch. The Coordinator stated that after reviewing the Zoning Regulations for “R-A” districts this use did not appear to be permitted. Christine Quirk then read aloud a 1995 letter by the Planning Board at the time, which stated that the campground would be allowed to be open to the public for birthday parties. She added that she had not been required to seek a special exception through the Zoning Board of Adjustment in that case. The Chairman wondered how the Planning Board at that time was able to justify that usage. Christine Quirk stated that the only question the Board had raised regarded parking and she had provided drawings to show ample parking was available unless a wedding or other large function was proposed on the site. She then submitted the 1995 letter of decision to the Board. Christine Quirk noted that she believed this scenario had set a precedent going forward for similar requests she might have regarding her campground business. James Nordstrom asked if there had been any revisions to permitted usage in the Zoning Regulations since 1995. The Coordinator then perused the

minutes of the 1995 meeting and commented that there was no discussion of the Zoning Ordinance’s items of uses, merely discussion regarding sparking spaces.

James Nordstrom suggested that Section #503: Alteration of Non-Conforming Use, might apply to this issue. The Coordinator noted that the existing building did conform, therefore, the extra use proposed did not alter its original conformity. James Nordstrom concluded that Section #503 was not an option for this scenario. The Coordinator suggested that research be done on the subject for discussion at the next meeting.

The Chairman stated that he was inclined to allow the expansion requested by the Quirks as it would not increase the intensity of use. He added that the access road to the campground was exclusive for that business and that more traffic would, therefore, only affect the campground. The Chairman further added that, although not classified as such, the campground was more commercial in nature than residential-agricultural and the facility was already existing to, and capable of, servicing a large number of meals. He noted that the Quirks could allow day passes to the public which would keep them in compliance of their Site Plan, however, they sought to approach the Board legitimately.

The Chairman asked Willard Dodge his thoughts on the matter. Willard Dodge replied that this was a tough issue and he would want to study the Zoning rules if it was up to him and ask what criteria was followed in 1995 without involving Zoning Regulations. The Chairman asked that the subject be researched and added that he would also contact Brent Armstrong directly regarding this issue. He noted that he would not have a problem expanding upon the allowance of 1995 as long as the Quirks were aware that this approval would break the chain of precedence. James Nordstrom added that he thought the Quirks’ proposal was an excellent one in theory and stressed that the problem lay within the Zoning Ordinance as it was clear that a restaurant was not permitted in an “R-A” district regardless of the Quirks argument in favor based on the 1995 decision of the Planning Board. He added that if the Board granted the requested usage tonight they would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Willard Dodge agreed and noted that the Board would need to handle this issue carefully to satisfy Zoning requirements.

From the audience, Rick Herget asked if the zone of the campground could be changed from “Residential-Agricultural” to “Commercial”. The Coordinator noted that campgrounds were not permitted in commercially zoned areas, hence no further expansion could be allowed if that change was made. Rick Herget stated that visitor passes could always be issued. The Coordinator stressed that the Board was in no way condoning that option.

5. A copy of a letter received April 1, 2005, from Carol Hayse and Richard Herget, to the

Planning Board, Re: Request for waiver to amend site plan, was distributed for the

Board’s review and discussion.

The Coordinator asked Rick Herget and Carol Hayse if employees of their home business would number four in addition to themselves. Rick Herget replied that was the case. The Chairman asked if these employees worked full or part time. Rick Herget replied that they had calculated days worked on their site based on safety concerns and erosion control on bad weather days which meant the business operated only in optimum conditions. He added that in

2004, the business operated 99 days at maximum output, therefore, the total hours worked for the year would be considered part time rather than full time. He added that in 2004, there was never a time when an employee worked a 40 hour week. The Chairman noted that a Minor Site Plan did not address full or part time hours. The Coordinator stated that was the case as the person running the business set the hours of operation unless the business was a graveling operation. The Chairman asked how the two existing employees were established. Abutter Pete Shellenberger stated that only one non-family member was allowed by what Rick Herget and Carol Hayse agreed to under their special exception granted by the ZBA. Carol Hayse stated that was what they were attempting to amend on their site plan. Rick Herget explained that their original site Plan was for a home business and when it was determined that a special exception was needed for the removal of earth products and could no longer be considered a home business they realized the need to change it to a Minor Site Plan review. He noted that at no point did anyone from the Town or the Board inform them that they would need an entirely new site plan, therefore they did not realize that as erosion controls needed to be implemented for the business that their initial plan would no longer be in compliance. Rick Herget stated that the Building Inspector visited their site earlier this year and supplied them with documentation that brought this to their attention along with the Board’s involvement.

The Chairman asked if a copy of the ZBA’s requirements for the special exception was available. He explained that the conditions required by the ZBA could not be overridden by the Board. The Planning Assistant provided a copy of the ZBA’s decision and things agreed to by the applicant at that time which, the Chairman explained, was the time line the Board needed to reference, and by example, the type of equipment agreed upon by the applicant for their special

exception was for a forklift only. Rick Herget clarified that to amend that requirement and add more equipment such as their current excavator they would need to approach the ZBA. The Chairman replied that was correct. James Nordstrom added that this would also be the case if

employees were increased to more than one non-family member. The Chairman explained that because a plan was now in place regarding how the business should be run the applicants would want their site plan amended in order to stay in compliance. Rick Herget noted that once their business was approved and established they began research and testing different machinery and decided that a bobcat track machine was more suitable for their business.

The Chairman quoted what he thought was an interesting stipulation of the ZBA to be catch-all phrase #5 and in addition noted that the approval was for: “…removal of surface stone only, no digging, no blasting, no quarrying, no excavating…”. He asked if the applicants had a copy of this decision. Rick Herget replied that they did and noted that they understood that digging would be allowed to cut roads in, etc. The Chairman believed the opposite was true. Rick Herget reclarified his statement to mean that paths could be cut as long as no trees were disturbed or slopes traversed. Kate Fitzpatrick asked if the ZBA rendering mentioned the grading or filling of existing roads. The Chairman corrected his previous statement as he then noticed that the ZBA’s rendering stated that roads could be cut to operate the business. He added that the rendering did not exclude the improvement of existing roads. Kate Fitzpatrick asked if the hours of operation were noted as she believed they were exceeded last summer and fall. Rick

Herget noted that they were operating the excavator and the bobcat after hours last year to install their septic system and not using it during those times for business purposes. The Chairman recommended that the applicants review their list of items and approach the ZBA with their quandary explaining that they were unaware that the progression of their business resulted in a non-compliance situation. Pete Shellenberger commented that the damage was already done by way of the special exception being granted against the abutters wishes in conjunction with the applicant unknowingly overstepping the ZBA’s requirements. The Chairman noted that if the applicant approached the ZBA to amend their plan they could be turned down and that they were now aware of their mistake going forward. He added that the Planning Board had no authority to alter the site plan unless they stipulated more restrictive measures. The Chairman explained that if the ZBA agreed to the applicants’ amendments the Board would review another Site Plan. Rick Herget asked why they had received a letter from the Planning Board that stated they needed to apply for a waiver to increase the numbers of employees at their business. The Chairman replied that he misinterpreted this requirement because he was unaware that certain items were agreed upon between the applicants and the ZBA, therefore, the Planning Board’s opinion was not binding at this point in the process. Abutter, Kate Fitzpatrick clarified that opponents of the business should be approaching the ZBA if they felt violations of the Herget/Hayse agreement were occurring such as the number of non-family employees, etc. The Chairman replied that he hoped the ZBA would ask if any enforcement action had been taken by the Building Inspector. He noted that the Building Inspector and Town Administrator had viewed the site on a certain day and had found no violations. Kate Fitzpatrick stated that certain violations would be difficult to prove such as loaded pallets in excess of what a small enterprise should retain that were on site one day and off site the next. Pete Shellenberger stated that he felt the business had gotten beyond the scope of its restrictions. Kate Fitzpatrick noted that a cutout was now visible on the site’s hill from Black Horse Farm. Rick Herget explained that this was exposed ledge at the top of the property and not a cutout.

At 11:30 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to extend the discussion for 15 minutes to

11:45 p.m. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Pete Shellenberger stated that he was originally against the applicant’s special exception request but accepted the ZBA’s decision in favor of it because he felt they were more familiar with such issues and considered the Town’s best interests. He added that the business did not seem to progress according to plan and that he and many other neighbors shared this opinion. Pete Shellenberger noted that the applicants were genuinely good people who did many positive things for the neighborhood and he regretted this conflict. Abutter Eric Jackson agreed with Pete Shellenberger’s comments and added that he believed this was a home spun business that had become too intensified with employees being trucked in from out of town who had no vested interest in the Town. He noted that he did not want to see this business turn into anembarrassment for the community. The Chairman clarified that opponents merely wanted to see the applicants abide by what stipulations were originally agreed upon for the business beforeexpansion proposals were entertained. Pete Shellenberger agreed with that synopsis.

The Chairman did not feel that approaching the ZBA would bode well for the applicants. He added that the applicants needed to present a good image to their neighbors first otherwise the ZBA and the Board would not be likely to grant additional requests unless they had confirmation that the applicants were conducting their operation in good faith.

Rick Herget stated that two years prior things in the business began to escalate beyond what they could have predicted. The Chairman noted that permits needed to grow with a business. Rick Herget added that they did not realize they had gone beyond the scope of what they were allowed to do until the Building Inspector came on site earlier in the year. Carol Hayse added that the issue became more complicated when abutters’ perceptions were incorrect. The Chairman noted that they now knew which abutters were reasonable versus who was not, hence, who they would be able to work with productively. He added that having a record of compliance was optimum.

Rick Herget questioned the Board’s letter authorizing their increase in hours of operation to 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Chairman noted that he did not think that the ZBA had set specific hours of operation for the business at the special exception hearing. Rick Herget wished to clarify that the amendment to those hours and the leveling of an area for loading was acceptable. The Chairman replied that these items were allowed as they were part of the site plan reviewed by the Board.

Carol Hayse stated that their trucks had made 33 trips down the road last year versus the speculated five trips per day, a calculation which she felt was a surprising speculation by the abutters.

Rick Herget stated that he appreciated the time given by the Board on this topic. The Chairman reminded the applicants that a record of compliance would be a very positive tool going forward.

8. Endorsement of a Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Alexander and Winfield Shaw Clark, Joe English & Lewis Roads, Tax Map/Lot #11/113 & 11/117.

The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Lot Line Adjustment Plan.

10. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Carolyn H. Mohan, Mont Vernon Road, Tax

Map/Lot #14/84.

The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.

At 11:45 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Christine Quirk seconded the

motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne O’Brien,

Recording Clerk Minutes Approved: