Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 07/12/2005
The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Vice Chairman James Nordstrom.  Present were regular member, Bob Furey; ex-officio Christine Quirk; and, alternates Don Duhaime and Douglas Hill.  Also present were Planning Coordinator Nicola Strong, Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.  Chairman, Peter Hogan arrived at approximately 7:10 p.m.  
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were, Jonathan and Jessica Willard, Roch Larochelle, Carol Hess, James and Wilma Dane, Jay Marden, Raymond Critch, LLS, Dave Walker, PE, Kathy Ryder, Richard and Elaine Hechtl, Lynette and Ken Lombard, Robert and Mary Locke, Jim Ryan and Roger Dignard.

WILLARD, JONATHAN & JESSICA     Adjourned from 5/24/05
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Private School
Location: 20 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #18/20
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Vice Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were the applicants, Jonathan and Jessica Willard.  No abutters or interested parties were present.
        Jonathan Willard stated that an outstanding item on the plan was the State Septic System Approval.  He explained that he had been in contact with the School Board to request an easement for the leach field to encroach on school property at the rear of the site only to discover that a Town vote on a School District Warrant Article would be required in order to gain the easement.  Jessica Willard added that this meant they would need to wait until the next Town vote in March of 2006.  Jonathan Willard noted that they also needed to confer with the board of Little People’s Depot preschool to determine if they still wished to move to the River Road site.  He added that the preschool had been given a one year extension on their current lease of the Neville Mill Hall by the new owners.  Jonathan Willard stated that if the preschool still hoped to relocate to the River Road property at the end of their lease he would make sure that all engineering designs were completed prior to the posting of the warrant article so that if the vote passed a quick turn around for approval would be possible.  Given this scenario he added that he hoped the Board could postpone their application until that time.
        Bob Furey asked if a standard septic easement was required.  Jonathan Willard replied that it was and was necessary for lot loading.  James Nordstrom clarified that the site did not have enough land area for lot loading of the septic system, therefore, a septic easement was necessary.  Jonathan Willard replied that was correct.  James Nordstrom noted that the School Board had already granted an access easement to the applicant in order that traffic to the proposed preschool might cross over an area of the Central School site.  Jonathan Willard replied that had occurred, however, the School Board had since been informed by the District’s Attorney that no easements could be granted without voter approval.  James Nordstrom asked if this rationale was due to the fact that the easement property was in the School District.  Jonathan Willard replied that was the case and that according to the RSA, Town property could not be leased or sold for more than 12 months without the approval of the School District.  The
Chairman asked if the property could be leased in twelve month intervals.  Jonathan Willard replied that DES would probably not permit a septic system based on such a scenario and could force him into a grandfathered situation which he wanted to avoid.
        Jonathan Willard stated that because of the voting issue time had become their issue.  Jessica Willard asked if it would be possible for the Board to postpone their application until March, 2006, after the Town vote was held on the required Warrant Article for the septic easement.  The Chairman replied that the Board recommended that the application be withdrawn in which case the Willards would be refunded their application fee.  Jessica Willard noted that if they withdrew their application they would need to start the process from the beginning in the future.  The Chairman replied that was not entirely the case and asked the Coordinator what fees would be non-refundable from the present application.  The Coordinator replied that certified notice letter fees and secretarial fees would be nonrefundable if the application were withdrawn.  She added that if the application was postponed to the following year and the Board, in the interim, made changes to Regulations that would be effective to the Willards plan, the fact that it was still considered active would give it immunity against those changes.  Jonathan Willard stated that they would agree to incorporate any changes made to the Regulations onto the plan if that were to occur.  The Chairman clarified that, from a bookkeeping standpoint, it was more prudent not to carry an active application for such a length of time.  Jonathan Willard asked if there was any Town ordinance that disallowed a lengthy postponement.  The Chairman replied there was not and that, technically, the Board could deny the application now but preferred a mutually acceptable agreement with the applicant.
        Christine Quirk asked if the applicants obtained a septic design if the plan could then be accepted with the required easement as a condition precedent.  The Chairman replied that because there were so many essential details missing from the plan he did not see that suggestion as an option.  Jonathan Willard stated that the only item missing from the plan was the Septic Permit.  The Chairman noted that the septic easement and the access easement were also required and both items were essential in order for the plan to be considered complete.  He reiterated that he believed the best way to handle this scenario was for the application to be withdrawn.  The Chairman noted that there was nothing in the site plan before the Board that had caused any changes to be needed to the Regulations and that the Board would be the entity to adopt any such changes.  He added that if no changes were needed and the same Board members were in place at the time of the next submission of the application the process should be fairly quick.  The Chairman noted that even if new Board members joined in the interim that would not affect the progress of the application as everything that had already been discussed with the applicant was a matter of record.  Christine Quirk asked if all the required permits and approvals were secured by the applicant at the time they reapplied if the application could be accepted and approved in one meeting.  The Chairman replied that was a possibility.  He added that the Board was aware of the outstanding issues of the plan which were that the School Board grant the necessary easements and the septic design be submitted.
        James Nordstrom asked if the applicants would like to request withdrawing their application for re-submittal at a later date.  Jessica Willard replied that they would.  James Nordstrom, as a matter of procedure, handed the Chairmanship over to the
Chairman who had joined the hearing after it began.
        
        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the applicants’ request for withdrawal of the application of Jonathan and Jessica Willard, NRSPR, Private School, Location: 20 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #18/20, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, without prejudice.      Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 12, 2005

1.      DANE, JAMES & WILMA
        HESS, CAROL L.
        Submission of Application/Planning Board to act
        without holding a hearing
        Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
        Location: 184 Francestown Road & Pine Echo Road
        Tax Map/Lot #5/6 & 5/7
        Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The applicants, James and Wilma Dane, and Carol Hess were present in the audience.  
        The Coordinator explained that it sometimes worked well for the Board to hold meetings that did not necessarily require a public hearing such as the above noted item.  She added that from the Town’s perspective abutters were still noticed, however, a formal hearing was not held unless requested by an abutter and the Board’s actions were the same as if a hearing was being held.  Bob Furey asked what would trigger the requirement for a public hearing.  The Coordinator replied that abutters had until the date of the scheduled meeting to make such a request.  She added that no such persons had come by the Planning Department requesting a formal hearing of this application or called with any interest to do so.
        The Chairman asked the applicant for a synopsis of her application.  Carol Hess replied that she owned the property adjacent to the Danes who had considered subdividing a portion of their lot, Lot #5/6, to sell.  She added that she had offered to purchase this portion of land in order to join it with her existing parcel, Lot #5/7, and proposed to keep it as open space with no further development.  Don Duhaime asked what the resulting acreage would be if her property and the Dane portion were combined.  Carol Hess replied that it would increase her lot size to slightly greater than 11 acres.  The Chairman clarified that the Danes had agreed to sell what would have been the proposed subdivided portion of their property to Carol Hess.  Carol Hess replied that was correct.  
        The Chairman stated that he was familiar with the area of discussion and did not see a need for a site walk.  He asked if any abutters were present in the audience and there were none.  Carol Hess noted that she had spoken with her neighbors regarding the lot line adjustment proposal and they were not against it.  Christine Quirk asked how many acres Carol Hess was purchasing from the Danes.  Carol Hess replied that it was approximately 3 acres.  
        The Chairman asked the Board if they had any comments or concerns with the proposal.  James Nordstrom asked if the requirements of this application were the same as an application for subdivision.  The Coordinator replied that was the case.  Douglas Hill asked if two lots would now become one.  The Chairman clarified that the Danes’ lot would become smaller while the applicant’s lot would become bigger if the lot line adjustment was approved.  
        The Chairman stated that a minor technicality existed where the waiver requests on the application and the 11” x 17” copies of the plan were not submitted within fifteen days prior to the meeting, therefore, as a matter of procedure, the application would need to be adjourned to another meeting date.  James Nordstrom agreed.  Carol Hess stated that she understood.  She asked if it was necessary for her to be present at the next scheduled meeting.  The Chairman replied that although he did not foresee any issues he thought that it would be best if the applicant could be present.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of James and Wilma Dane and Carol Hess, Minor Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: 184 Francestown Road & Pine Echo Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/6 & 5/7, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to   July 26, 2005 at 8:30 p.m.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board as his hearing was up next.

This will be an informational session with Douglas Hill to discuss a potential Subdivision of Tax Map/Lot’s #5/16, 137 Francestown Road.

        Raymond Critch, LLS, and Douglas Walker, LLS, of Bedford Design Consultants were present along with Douglas Hill, potential subdivider the above noted property.  Abutters and interested parties present were Jay Marden, Kathy Ryder, James and Wilma Dana, and Ken and Lynnette Lombard.
        Raymond Critch, LLS, stated that the parcel was formally known as the old Kritzon property and located on the western side of NH Route 136 south of the Tucker Mill Road intersection and comprised of 70 acres with 150 feet+/- of frontage on Francestown Road.  He explained that on the informational sketch provided wetlands were outlined in yellow, wooded areas dark green, fields light green and the existing house brown.  Raymond Critch, LLS, added that there were two existing accesses off Route 136 to the site with one being a driveway that was the proposed entrance for the subdivision road and another driveway that accessed the existing house from a steep angle. He noted that an open space or cluster subdivision was being considered with 2,800 feet of road and 24 house lots.  Raymond Critch, LLS, further noted that one of the house lots would be larger at 6.8 acres while the remaining lots would fall between 1 and 3.4 acres each.  He stated that one wetland crossing was presumed with 1,000 s.f.+/- of impact.  Raymond Critch, LLS, noted that they sought the Board’s input regarding the layout of this conceptual design.
        The Chairman asked the length of the conceptual design’s road.  Raymond Critch, LLS, replied that the proposed length was 2,800 feet.  Douglas Hill wished to note that the lot which would accommodate the existing house, barn and field would be proposed to remain as it was with covenants that stated no future development could occur.  He added that the only changes to the property would be two house lots on one side of the house/barn lot (Lot #1) with the other side undisturbed.  Douglas Hill noted that the open space would surround the site which was why a cul-de-sac was considered.  The Chairman asked if there were any areas of the site that were within the Steep Slopes District.  Raymond Critch, LLS, replied that 5 acres of the site were considered moderately steep and he noted the location on the conceptual plan.  He noted that they had applied the appropriate density calculations according to the Regulations for a cluster design which assured that each lot would have at least 0.75 acres of contiguous flatland.  Raymond Critch, LLS, added that the proposed road design would accommodate the driveways to the lots with minimal grading or disturbance to the land.  Douglas Hill noted that the proposed road was located in the upper right corner of the conceptual design.  The Chairman asked what the light green shading on the design represented.  Raymond Critch, LLS, replied that the light green shading represented existing fields on the site which would be encumbered to Lot #1.
        Douglas Hill stated that he was a local builder of upper scale homes and did not like to clear more trees than was necessary for such projects.  He added that he hoped to keep the proposed subdivision as unobtrusive as possible for a 24 lot development.
        Bob Furey asked if the wetland noted on the design ran towards the area of the proposed cul-de-sac or if grading would halt its flow.  Douglas Hill replied that the wetland flowed away from that area and not towards it.  Raymond Critch, LLS, added that the wetland area was more elevated than the area of the proposed cul-de-sac with a pond below it.  Bob Furey clarified that it was considered a crowned site.  Raymond Critch, LLS, replied that was correct and noted the high spot on the design.
        Raymond Critch, LLS, stated that the proposed open space acreage totaled 27.4 acres not including the encumbered area of proposed Lot #1.  Interested party, Jay Marden wished to confirm that the conceptual design represented a cluster development and asked where the open space was located.  Raymond Critch, LLS, replied that this design was for a cluster and noted the open space on the conceptual plan.  Jay Marden then asked if the existing house would be on the proposed Lot #1 and what the encumbering of its property would involve.  Douglas Hill replied that no future development would be allowed on Lot #1 which would be covered by deed restrictions or whatever documentation the Town required to assure this.  The Chairman stated that it appeared to be Douglas Hill’s desire that the proposed subdivision would be visually hidden behind Lot #1.  Douglas Hill replied that was correct.  Abutter, Kathy Ryder, asked if the sight distance was considered acceptable for the driveway of Lot #1 as she lived across the street from it.  Douglas Hill replied that some work would need to be done and the sight distance would be made better as a result.  Raymond Critch, LLS, added that looking to the north the sight distance was acceptable, however, some grade work would be necessary to the south of the that driveway and a reconfiguring of the sharp angled driveway was also planned.  Bob Furey asked if the sight distance work would be done on the western side of Route 136.  Raymond Critch, LLS, replied that was the case and that it would be done in the area just south of the
proposed entrance to the road.
        Abutter, Lynette Lombard stated that she was concerned about the length of the cul-de-sac in consideration of fire or other emergencies.  Douglas Hill replied that a looped road was feasible but would disturb an additional 10-15 acres.  Raymond Critch, LLS, added that substantial grading into the existing tree line would be necessary if a looped road was constructed.  He further added that fire sprinklers were being considered for the proposed house lots.  Douglas Hill clarified that he was leaning towards the installation of a fire cistern for the subdivision.  Raymond Critch, LLS, noted that sections of the proposed road would have a maximum grade of 8%.  Dave Walker, PE, further noted that the grades of the road would fluctuate between 2 and 3% with two 400-500 foot sections at 8% and that no driveways would have grades over the Town’s maximum allowed 10%.  Douglas Hill added that the driveways would most likely have grades of 8% or less.  The Chairman asked if it would be difficult to access proposed Lot #18.  Raymond Critch, LLS, replied that the road was fairly flat in that area and traversed the edge of existing wetlands.  Dave Walker, PE, noted that no filling or grading was proposed near these wetlands, therefore, they would construct the road using the existing grade in that area.
        Jay Marden asked how the ownership of the open space would be handled.  Douglas Hill replied that each lot would own 1/24th of the open space and would be dictated by the development’s homeowner’s association.  The Chairman added that the lot owners would own and pay property taxes on their share of the open space.  Raymond Critch, LLS, added that the open space would still be encumbered by the Regulations of the Town.  Jay Marden clarified that this meant the open space could be used for passive recreation.  Douglas Hill agreed and noted that the open space would also be surrounded by a 100 foot buffer as required by the Cluster Regulations.  Raymond Critch, LLS, added that none of the lots would infringe on that buffer area and noted the only area not surrounded by this buffer was adjacent to the encumbered property of Lot #1.  Bob Furey clarified that the open space corridor would then be considered part of the 100 foot buffer.  Raymond Critch, LLS, replied that was correct.  Douglas Hill noted that when the property was purchased he believed it to total 100 acres but found that it was instead 70 acres.  He further noted that according to the tax maps it appeared that the site connected to property on Dennison Road, however, they later discovered that it did not.  Raymond Critch, LLS, noted that once they began matching the deeds to the property area surrounding the site they discovered errors in the tax map compilations.  Lynette Lombard stated that she would like to know all the abutters names.  Raymond Critch, LLS, replied that he did not have the names available, however, pointed out large tracts of land that tied back to Dennison Road.  From the audience, Carol Hess noted that one of the tracts belonged to the Colburns.  Douglas Hill recalled that name as one of the owners of the large tracts.
        James Nordstrom asked if the disposition of two properties south of an existing beaver pond with one fronting on Route 136 and the other backing up to Clark Hill Road were known.  Douglas Hill was not sure that they were developable and noted a swamp or wetland area in the area of the beaver pond.  James Nordstrom wondered if it would be conceivable to connect from Route 136 to Clark Hill Road if the proposed cul-de-sac was ever extended.  Douglas Hill replied that would not be possible as the topography showed a 50 to 75 foot drop in what would be the connecting area.  Raymond Critch, LLS, noted that a connection from Dennison Road to the new cul-de-sac might be possible although the property that would accommodate a connection was fairly narrow.  James Nordstrom added that it was very rugged terrain.
        Jay Marden asked if major re-grading or graveling was anticipated for the proposed development.  Raymond Critch, LLS, replied that it was not.  Interested party, James Dane asked if the property at Route 136 and Dennison Road was part of the site.  Douglas Hill replied that it was not and that the tax maps incorrectly noted the property as belonging to the site when it instead was owned by the Colburns.  Raymond Critch, LLS, concurred.  Don Duhaime noted that the site was within the Dodge Pond Watershed as identified in the Water Resource Management Plan which stated that any lots developed were required to be a minimum of two acres.  He asked if this document superceded the Planning Board’s Regulations.  The Coordinator replied that she was not sure why the term “required” was used in this document as it was strictly advisory.  Raymond Critch, LLS, thought that the document might be referring to lot sizing for conventional versus cluster developments.  He noted that a cluster development would provide more of a buffer to the watershed and retain more natural woodlands.  Dave Walker, PE, added that a looped road design would add another 1,500 to 2,000 feet of road which would then increase the need for plowing and salting in the winter, thus affecting more of the natural surroundings.
        Jay Marden stated that he wished to congratulate the conceptual design owners and engineers on its configuration as it emphasized the preservation of the old Kritzon property and would not cause large environmental impacts.
        James Nordstrom noted that according to the layout of the proposed cul-de-sac its length would require a waiver if a formal plan was submitted.  Raymond Critch, LLS, replied that this was the type of input they sought from the Board at this juncture.  James Nordstrom noted that from an environmental standpoint the length of the cul-de-sac made sense.  Bob Furey noted that grading would be challenging for the looped road scenario.  Douglas Hill agreed and added that the driveway grades would also be increased given that option.  Dave Walker, LLS, noted that using the looped road design would mean that the road would need to be widened beyond the limits of the 50 foot right-of-way.  Raymond Critch, LLS, added that in that case some of the back portions of the lots would back up to each other.
        The Chairman stated that one issue he had with cluster designed developments were backlots, however, this conceptual design seemed to have only one on top of a hill, Lot #23.  Ray Critch, LLS, noted that Lot #23 would have 80 feet of frontage and be one of the more visually pleasing lots in the development.  Douglas Hill added that cluster designs offered privacy to lot owners without sacrificing a neighborhood environment.
        Bob Furey asked if the entrance to the new proposed road was forced by the property line of the existing lot because it seemed that if the entrance was moved down the road its sight distance could be improved.  Raymond Critch, LLS, noted the placement of the existing house and driveway culverts which would not allow that.  He added that some minor grading in that area would facilitate better sight distance at the proposed entrance of the road.  Kathy Ryder
asked who would own the existing house and barn on Lot #1.  Douglas Hill replied that it would be sold to the homeowner with covenants that stated no further development could occur and that the house would need to be restored.  The Chairman asked if the covenants would extend to the existing barn.  Douglas Hill thought that the barn could be rebuilt to some degree but that it would need serious attention.  Raymond Critch, LLS, added that in regard to Kathy Ryder’s question of sight distance concerns the DOT would need to approve sight distance because the driveway in question entered off a state highway and that this agency had stringent requirements.  James Nordstrom asked what State permits would be required of this plan.  Raymond Critch, LLS, replied that State Subdivision Approval, a minimum expedited wetland crossing, DOT and Site Specific Permits would be required.  Douglas Hill noted that no waivers would be requested.  Raymond Smith clarified that a waiver to the cul-de-sac length would be required.
        Abutter, Richard Hechtl asked what the cost of the proposed homes on the lots would be.  Douglas Hill replied that the cost was speculative but he thought that the cost of each home would be approximately $500K.  Richard Hechtl asked if the length of the proposed cul-de-sac would be an issue for the Fire Department.  The Chairman replied that he could not envision a blockage to the proposed road that could not be addressed by the Town’s fire apparatus.  He added that a study had been conducted on the lengths of cul-de-sacs and they used to be determined according to the length of fire hose for a town.  The Chairman noted that this was no longer the determining factor and cul-de-sac lengths were addressed on a case by case basis.  Christine Quirk concurred.   
        Lynette Lombard asked if the Fire Department would pump from the site’s existing wetlands for fire water supply.  Douglas Hill replied that fire sprinklers would be installed in the homes or a cistern would be installed for the development.  The Chairman noted that even if a pond were available for pumping water the Fire Department did not like to do so because it brought debris into the trucks.
        James Nordstrom asked if the potential applicant had received answers to all of his questions regarding the conceptual design.  Raymond Critch, LLS, replied that they now had a better feel of what should be done and felt that the cul-de-sac length would not be an issue given its justifications.  The Coordinator noted that the Board’s input was one part of the equation with suggestions from the Road Agent, Fire Department and Road Committee also warranted.  Raymond Critch, LLS, asked if it would be helpful to supply 11” x 17” copies of the conceptual to the Planning Department so that they could be forwarded to those groups.  The Coordinator replied that would be a good idea.  The Chairman asked Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, who was present in the audience, if he had any input this evening on the conceptual design.  Roch Larochelle replied that he had no issues with cul-de-sac and would defer that item to the Fire Department and their access preferences.  He added that he did not foresee any categorical issues and that the design appeared to be well done.  Roch Larochelle stated that if the plans were submitted he would be pleased to review them.

AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC.
Public Hearing/Revocation
Major Site Plan/Public Wireless Service Facility
Location: 7 Meetinghouse Road
Tax Map/Lot #18/36
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  An interested party present was Jim Ryan.  
        The Chairman read a faxed letter to the Board from AT&T attorney, Tom Welch: “On behalf of Cingular Wireless I am writing to advise the Board that my client will not be moving forward on the Town Hall and Wilson Hill wireless sites at this time.  Cingular understands that the conditions of the Town Hall site have lapsed and the conditions of the Wilson Hill site will lapse later this month.  Cingular also understands that the approval previously granted in both instances will be revoked and that it will be necessary to begin the Site Plan Review process anew and is prepared to fully pursue these projects in the future.  I appreciate your cooperation and willingness to work with my client and its predecessor in interest during this process.”
James Nordstrom asked if the revocation for the Wilson Hill site could be addressed with the Town Hall.  The Coordinator replied that it could not and would need to be addressed separately.  She added that this could be acted upon at the next meeting.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to revoke the Non-Residential Site Plan for AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (applicant) and Town of New Boston (owner), Proposal: to install a       personal wireless facility in a 10’ x 20’ area of the Town Hall attic, at Meetinghouse Hill     Road, Tax Map/Lot #18/36 in the Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as the Conditions Precedent as listed in the Notice of Decision of December 23, 2003, with a deadline date of June 1, 2004, extended to October 1, 2004, March 1, 2005 and May 1,      2005, have not been completed.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        Interested party, Jim Ryan, asked what the case would be for new solicitors for wireless sites in the Town.  The Chairman replied that they would need to submit a formal application to the Board.  Jim Ryan stated that he hoped the same scenario did not occur again as much time had been wasted on this application.  The Chairman thanked Mr. Ryan for his input.

2.      Approval of minutes of June 14, 2005, with or without changes. (Distributed at the June         28, 2005, meeting.)

        Christine Quirk stated that she had noted some minor grammatical changes which she would submit to the Coordinator.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of June 14, 2005, as amended.  Bob

        Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

3.      Endorsement of a Conditional Use Permit Site Plan for Timothy White and Cheryl  Christner, Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/38, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
        
        The Chairman and Vice Chairman (in the Secretary’s absence) endorsed the above noted Conditional Use Permit Site Plan.

4.      Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for Vista Road, LLC, Hutchinson Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, by the Planning Board Chairman.

        The Chairman endorsed the above noted Subdivision Agreement.

5.      A copy of a letter dated June 29, 2005, from Christine and Andrzej Pedzik, 762 River Road, to the Planning Department, Re: extension request to conditions subsequent, was distributed for the Board’s action.

        The Chairman asked the length of extension requested by the applicants.  James Nordstrom replied that they requested an extension to the end of 2005.  The Chairman stated that he felt this was an unrealistic date and that the extension should be for another full year.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the extension request of the conditions precedent for the Pedziks in their letter to the Board dated June 29, 2006, to July 1, 2006.  Bob Furey  seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

6.      Driveway Permit Application for Christopher J. Bolton, Hemlock Drive, Tax       Map/Lot#3/52-26, for the Board’s approval. (No Copies)

        The Coordinator explained that the approval of the above noted Driveway Permit Application had been overlooked during the time of the Site Plan approval and added that the upper entrance to the site had never been permitted before although it was in existence.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #05-017, for, Tax Map/Lot #3/52-26, for a 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.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

7.      A copy of a letter dated July 5, 2005, from Robert G. Locke, to the Board, Re: construction of a driveway/parking pad on Kennedy Lane, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

        Robert and Mary Locke were present in the audience and submitted photos of the area in question to the Board.  James Nordstrom asked if the executors of the neighborhood’s covenants had been contacted regarding this issue.  Robert Locke stated that Gill Paving had been instructed by the owners of the trailer to dump a load of gravel for the parking pad and on their first attempt had emptied the gravel on top of a culvert that fed a cistern for the neighborhood.  He added that Gill Paving returned to move the pile 30 feet to the south creating a mess of debris.  Douglas Hill asked if it was possible that the parking pad was being installed as a temporary space for the owner’s trailer until the pavement on their residential driveway had settled.  Robert Locke replied that by all indications he believed the parking pad was intended for spring, summer and fall parking which the neighborhood covenants prohibited.  James Nordstrom again asked if the executors of these covenants had been contacted.  The Chairman noted that the Town did not become involved in private covenants, however, it did concern itself with driveway entrances and in this case, stated that the parking pad in question did not meet Town Regulations as it was located in the right-of-way of the road.  Robert Locke noted that if two vehicles needed to pass each other going in opposite directions on that portion of the road way they needed to slow down in order to avoid the parked trailer.  The Chairman asked Robert Locke who he had approached regarding the issue.  Robert Locke replied that he had spoken with neighbors who agreed that they did not want the trailer parked there and that in an area of upper end homes it was an eye sore.  He added that the present owners of two homes in the neighborhood had their homes on the market and were concerned that the sight of the trailer and parking pad would deter potential buyers.  Douglas Hill thought that the issue could be of a traffic enforcement nature.  Robert Locke stated that he was aware that this problem was more of a civil matter and that the Board might not be able to become involved.  The Chairman stated that the enforcement of the covenants might not be required by the neighborhood as public parking could not be put just anywhere.  Robert Locke stated that he had spoken with the Road Agent who was of the same opinion and said that a Driveway Permit did not exist for the parking pad.
        The Chairman asked if issue should be referred to the Code Enforcement Officer.  The Coordinator replied that the Board could refer the issue to the Code Enforcement Officer based on the observations of the Road Agent.  Douglas Hill noted that the parking pad was also located across the street from a cistern.  Robert Locke added that the skidsteers used to place the gravel  had substantially damaged the road.
        The Chairman stated that the Board could forward a letter unrelated to covenants but focused on the Driveway Permit issue to the Code Enforcement Officer.  He added that the only remedy of the trailer owner would then be to apply for a Driveway Permit which would not be issued.  Robert Locke asked if abutters would be notified if the owner made such an application.  The Chairman replied that it would not matter because the Driveway Permit Application would not be approved.  He noted that there were other similar issues in the Town currently such as some circular driveways that were not constructed according to Regulations and added that the correction process was a slow one which the Lockes should assume would be the case for their issue.  Robert Locke stated that if the trailer was successfully moved he would be willing to restore the site to its natural condition himself.  The Coordinator stated that she would speak with the Road Agent and the Fire Chief to get their input regarding the nearby cistern.

8.      Discussion and action from the Board, Re: Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements for Seff Enterprises and Holdings, LLC.

        The Coordinator explained that the above noted document requested easement access to Lot #8/84-30-1 over an adjoining lot, Lot #8/84-29 on the far side of an existing brook for construction of the bridge for access to Lot #8/84-30-1.  She added that this seemed to be a simple easement document at the outset, however, after construction the easement comes back into effect in the case of any future repairs needed to the constructed bridge.  The Coordinator asked if the document should be forwarded for Town Counsel’s review. The Chairman thought this was a good idea as the document seemed very well done but extensive.  He added that the terms of the easement access seem unrealistic and he could not imagine a lot owner that would want heavy equipment crossing their lot to maintain or repair a bridge on an adjoining lot.  James Nordstrom agreed that Town Counsel should review the easement documents.

9.      Discussion and action from the Board, Re: Road Bond Estimate for Karen M. Morin Revocable Trust, Greenfield Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/74.

        The Coordinator explained that there was no copy of the bond estimate for the construction of Daylily Lane in the file at the time the Subdivision was approved.  She added that Paul Morin had stopped by the Planning Department and brought to her attention that only the costs for improvements to Greenfield Road were included in the notice of decision and not the construction costs for Daylily Lane.  The Coordinator noted that a motion to amend the notice of decision to include this cost estimate was needed.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to amend the notice of decision for the Subdivision Plan of Karen Morin Revocable Trust, Tax Map 7 Lot 74, Greenfield Road, to include the cost   estimate of construction for Dayliliy Lane - $250,560.20 for Daylily Lane and $52,733.45        for Greenfield Road.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

10.     A copy of a letter dated July 1, 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to the Board, Re: Nissitissit Development, LLC, Forest View-as built review, was distributed for the `Board’s information.


DIGNARD, ROGER  
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Architectural Home Office
Location: 146 South Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #13/50
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Roger Dignard.  No abutters or interested parties were present.
        Roger Dignard stated that he had submitted plan revisions per the Coordinator’s checklist items which consisted of the notation for a north arrow, hours of operation and corrections to abutter names and addresses.  He noted that he had spoken with Dennis Covey, Fire Inspector and Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief who had in turn reviewed the plan with the Board of Fire Wards.  Douglas Hill asked for a summary of the Fire Wards’ review.  Roger Dignard stated that he had identified some exceptions within the NFPA code that applied to his plan and allowances for non-separate mixed uses such as a home office.  He noted that the Fire Chief and Board of Fire Wards had concurred with his findings and had also made some suggestions.  Roger Dignard added that it was determined that a two hour fire wall between the residence and home office was not necessary and his usage of the site would be such that he would be moving between the two areas quite frequently.  He noted that the Fire Chief had suggested that a heat detector be installed in the garage and the sheet rock be extended to a measure of 5/8’s inch between the office and residence.
        The Chairman asked the Coordinator if there were any other outstanding issues.  The Coordinator replied that three copies of the revised site plan needed to be submitted and the waiver request granted at the last meeting for the consideration of a minor versus major site plan needed to be added on to the plan.  She noted that both of these items could be included as conditions if a motion for approval were made this evening.  Roger Dignard asked if the waiver item needed to be in a separate signature block on the plan.  The Coordinator replied that it should be noted on the plan that the waiver to consider the plan as minor versus major was granted by the Board at the meeting held on June 14, 2005.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the site plan for Roger Dignard, to operate an architect’s office/home business from 1,056 s.f. of the existing dwelling at 146 South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/50, subject to the following conditions:              

        CONDITIONS(S) PRECEDENT:
        1.   Submission of a minimum of three (3) copies of the revised site plan that include all
              checklist corrections and any agreed-upon conditions from this hearing;
        2.   Execution of a Site Review Agreement regarding the condition(s) subsequent;
        The deadline for complying with the Condition(s) Precedent shall be July 30, 2005,      
        the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action from the Board.  Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, an administrative NOTICE OF  DENIAL shall be issued without further action of the Board being required.

        CONDITIONS(S) SUBSEQUENT:
        1.   All of the site improvements are to be completed per the approved site plan;
        2.   The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing and the opening of thebusiness on the site;
        3.   Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted prior to the compliance hearing;
        4.   A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of Permit to Operate or Certificate of Occupancy, or both.
        The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be September 30,2005, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing on same as described in item 4 above.
        Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        Roger Dignard noted that he had a tight time frame for moving from his old office to his new one and that he would coordinate a quick compliance walk and hearing with the Planning office.

11.     Daily road inspection reports dated, May 19th and 20th of 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Indian Falls, were distributed for the Board’s information.

12.     Distribution of the Regional Comprehensive Plan Questionnaire from SNHPC, to be discussed at the meeting of July 26, 2005.

        The Coordinator explained that one completed questionnaire needed to be submitted from each Town board.  The Chairman suggested that each Planning Board could fill out a questionnaire and the results could be averaged into one for submission.  The Board agreed.

13.     Read File:  Public Notice for July 19, 2005, from the Town of Bedford, Re: proposed cell tower at 77 Chubbuck Road.

14.     The minutes of June 28, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of July 26, 2005, with or without changes.

15.     Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Harvey J. Dupuis Family Trust, Carriage Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/93 & 12/93-22, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.        

        The Coordinator suggested that this endorsement could be done at the end of the meeting as multiple sheets needed signatures.  The Chairman agreed.

16a.    The final draft of the Driveway Regulations was distributed for the Board’s review.

        This item was addressed in 16b. 

16b.    A copy of a letter dated July 10, 2005, from Bill Drescher, Re: driveway regulations was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

        The Coordinator explained that she had provided new copies of the final draft of the Driveway Regulations to the Board along with Town Counsel’s letter of review.  James Nordstrom stated that he did not disagree with any of the comments provided by Town Counsel.   The Chairman thought that Bill Drescher, Esq.’s, suggested revisions should be incorporated into the final draft.  James Nordstrom asked the Coordinator if she had any additional items.  The Coordinator replied that she did not.  The Chairman asked what the time frame would be for completion of the revised final draft.  The Coordinator suggested that the Board could review the revised final draft at the first meeting in August so that the Road Agent, Building Inspector and any other interested parties would have ample time to review it and offer additional comments.
        Douglas Hill asked why the approval of a Driveway Permit which was necessary prior to receipt of a Building Permit could exceed eight weeks as noted in the draft of the Driveway Regulations.  The Coordinator replied that this time table was a conservative estimate based on the Board’s possible scheduling or inspection conflicts.  She noted that this was why the language in the draft said it “could” exceed eight weeks.  James Nordstrom added that it was the Town’s policy not to issue Building Permits until the Driveway Permit was secured.  

17.     A copy of a letter dated July 11, 2005, from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to the Planning Department, Re: Indian Falls, LLC, and bond reduction request, was distributed for the Board’s information.

        The Chairman clarified that the Town Engineer was not recommending a bond reduction at this time.  The Coordinator replied that was correct.  Don Duhaime noted that Golden Oak Developers had recently filed bankruptcy.  James Nordstrom asked what the current bond amount was.  The Planning Assistant pulled the file and stated that it was $435,414.00.

18.     Read File:  Public Notice for July 19, 2005, from the Town of Bow Zoning Board, Re: proposed installation of a cell tower.

19.     The Coordinator explained that the Master Plan Transportation Committee was working with the Livable Walkable Communities Committee and had a grant to do work on walkways from the Town fairgrounds to the Post Office.  She noted that the Committee thought that it would be a good idea to have a Planning Board member attend their meetings which were held one a month.  The Coordinator added that if anyone had that interest they could contact Sandy VanScoyoc .  She added that she could not attend herself because she already attended the meetings for the Steep Slopes Committee and the Master Plan Committee.  James Nordstrom stated that he could possibly attend but could not make a definite commitment at this time.

20.     The Coordinator stated that the voluntary questionnaire generated from the Master Plan Committee to Town residents had a 25% return rate.

15.     Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Harvey J. Dupuis Family Trust, Carriage Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/93 & 12/93-22, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.        

        At 9:00 p.m. Christine Quirk MOVED to adjourn. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

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