PLANNING BOARD MINUTES - MEETING 08/23/2005
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom; and, alternates Don Duhaime and Douglas Hill. Also present were Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Michael Koon, Joseph Swiezynski, John Greenwood, Kristine Filteau, Lynn Strong, Jerry Perron, George & Carol Merrill, Brandy Mitroff, David Crane and Gary Shelto.
DIGNARD, ROGER
Compliance 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. The Planning Assistant noted that the applicant had requested that tonight’s hearing be postponed. She added that it was possible to reschedule this hearing for September 27, 2005.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the Compliance Hearing of Roger Dignard, NRSPR, Architectural Home Office, Location: South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/50, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to September 27, 2005, at 7:45 p.m. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2005
16a. A copy of a letter dated August 22, 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to the Board, Re: 13-15 Hopkins Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and Discussion.
This item addressed with item #16c.
16b. A copy of an Email received August 22, 2005, from Amy Alexander. To the Planning Department, Re: 13-15 Hopkins Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
This item addressed with item #16c.
16c. A copy of an Email received August 22, 2005, from Amy Alexander. To the Planning Department, Re: 13-15 Hopkins Road, site specific, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, and Michael Koon of Sandford Survey and Engineering were present for this item. Also present was the applicant, Joseph Swiezynski. The Chairman asked if the applicant had read the review comments by Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., in her
letter dated August 22, 2005. Michael Koon replied that they had reviewed these comments and prepared responses for the items noted in the letter. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, clarified that they were prepared to review their responses with the Board tonight if that was preferred. James Nordstrom commented that this application had been in process for some time. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, agreed.
The Chairman asked why the applicant proposed a 2-year versus 25-year storm management plan for the site. Michael Koon replied that this was originally requested in Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s, review and performed by Bob Todd, LLS. He added that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had stated that the method for the rationale of the two-year storm was unacceptable, therefore, the methodology was redone still using a two-year storm model. James Nordstrom stated that although the Subdivision Regulations currently required two-year storm drainage calculations he believed Dufresne-Henry, Inc., wanted a 25-year storm calculation performed for this plan. The Planning Assistant added that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had recommended that the Board not accept a waiver to accept
the two year storm calculation if the applicant made that request. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the application had been approved with Bob Todd, LLS’s report on based on a two year storm model. James Nordstrom noted that the approval was conditionally based on satisfying all of the Town Engineer’s review comments and further noted that the Board had suggested at the time that this method of approval could be problematic for the applicant. James Nordstrom stated that there appeared to be a 50% increase in drainage using the two-year storm calculations. Gordon Carlstrom noted that based off of the two-year storm the percentage changed from 0.66 to 0.98, which was a difference of +0.48%. Michael Koon stated that this was due to a wetland that existed partially onsite and partially on an abutting property. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that the quantitative difference in the percentages was equal to less than 1 CFS. James
Nordstrom agreed that the percentage change was deceiving as it dealt with less than one half of one CFS, but noted that the Town Engineer had anticipated that a waiver would be requested and had suggested that the Board not accept it. He added that this recommendation was in the cover letter to the Planning Department attached to the Town Engineer’s formal review letter dated August 22, 2005. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that they had addressed all of the sub-items in the August 22, 2005, letter and wondered why the drainage issue was only mentioned to the Planning Department in a separate cover letter. Michael Koon submitted copies of the five items addressed by the applicant to the Board. The Chairman stated that because these copies were not to the Planning Department within the statutory time line of seven days prior to the hearing the Board could not act on anything this evening. Joseph Swiezynski noted that his application had already
been conditionally approved. The Chairman replied that the application was approved based on satisfying the Town Engineer. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, asked if the Board would like them to review the items they addressed based on the Town Engineer’s review letter. The Chairman replied that he did not think there was ample time for the Board to review the Town Engineer’s comments and the applicant’s responses to those items. He added that the Town Engineer first needed to be satisfied with the applicant’s address of these items. James Nordstrom agreed and noted that although the Board had been satisfied with the application their approval had been
conditionally based on the Town Engineer’s approval. He added that although Dufresne-Henry, Inc., was scrutinizing one half of a cubic foot over the drainage issue, they would not be satisfied until the two drainage percentages discussed were equal.
Douglas Hill asked if the original drainage calculations were done to Town specifications. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that he was unsure. Michael Koon stated that the drainage calculations were originally done for a two-year storm. The Chairman clarified that these calculations were referred to the Town Engineer and the application was approved at a previous meeting pending their satisfaction with the plan. Gordon Carlstrom noted that a letter to the Board from the Town Engineer received two weeks prior stated that the drainage had not been done to Town specifications. Douglas Hill stated that this was the point he was trying to clarify. James Nordstrom stated that although the Town standard drainage calculations was for a two year/24
hour day storm Dufresne-Henry, Inc., did not believe that met the specifications of the plan and the original methodology used was also unacceptable. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that he was unsure what basis the Town Engineer used to determine that the two-year storm model was unacceptable. Joseph Swiezynski stated that at the time of the first drainage calculation for the plan he believed the methodology employed would be acceptable as there was nothing specific required by the Town at that time. He added that he believed Bob Todd, LLS, had tested the two-year storm model in good faith and that all the professionals associated with his plan had met their obligations. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that this site was very good regarding drainage with an existing deep kettle hole and well drained soils. James Nordstrom agreed that he had seen the site three times during the application process and never noted standing water in any location. Earl
Sandford, LLS, PE, concurred that the drainage on site was excellent.
Douglas Hill asked what the ramifications would be if the Board asked for the Town Engineer’s recommendations to achieve a zero net drainage on the site. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that this could involve disturbing a significant amount of natural terrain, which he felt was not a sensible solution. He added that currently the drainage involved on site consisted of less than 1 CFS heading towards a wetland versus a house lot, which would be unacceptable. James Nordstrom clarified that to achieve the zero net scenario more storage area on the site would need to be opened. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that would be the case. The Chairman stated that the Board’s only option was to forward the applicant’s responses to the
items outlined in Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s letter back to their offices and await their recommendations. Michael Koon asked if the Town Engineer would relay their concerns to the applicant going forward if an increased CFS was their concern as they were not informed of this until this evening through the Board. The Chairman suggested that the applicant schedule a conference with the Town Engineer if necessary to discuss such issues. Joseph Swiezynski noted that Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had refused to meet with him. Gordon Carlstrom stated that it was not the general practice of the Town Engineer to meet with contractors. Joseph Swiezynski replied that they had a meeting some time ago prior to this issue that went very well. James Nordstrom stated that he was curious to know why the Town Engineer recommended that the Board not entertain a waiver request for the two year storm model for this plan given that the characteristics of
the site and its soils were so good. Douglas Hill asked if the Town Engineer had viewed this site. Joseph Swiezynski replied that Amy Alexander had told him that she had been to the site.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that it was frustrating to know that an additional item of concern of the Town Engineer was withheld in their letter to the applicant but relayed to the Planning Board. James Nordstrom clarified that in the cover letter to the Board from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., the increased CFS is mentioned but not included in the itemized list of issues. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that he would think a recommendation for action would be suggested if any mention of concern was made. James Nordstrom and Douglas Hill agreed. Joseph Swiezynski reiterated that he and his professionals had performed and responded in good conscience throughout the process of this application. He asked if the Board would now forward the
applicant’s responses to the items involved back to the Town Engineer with their recommendations. The Chairman clarified that it was the Board who would be seeking the Town Engineer’s input and that they would want to know what the issue was in respect to what was approved, i.e., two-year versus 25-year storm models. Joseph Swiezynski stated that he would be interested to know why the requirement of the two-year storm model was unacceptable to the Town Engineer given the minimal runoff on the site. The Chairman stated that this could be noted by the Board to the Town Engineer upon forwarding the applicant’s responses to their items back to them.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, asked if the Town Engineer was aware of the seven day submission rule to the Planning Department so that the applicant did not waste their efforts by scheduling the next meeting with the Board too soon. The Chairman replied that the Town Engineer should be aware of this procedure and that when they received information back from them the Board could forward it to the applicant before a meeting was scheduled to allow the applicant ample time for consideration. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, asked what ensued when differences of opinion were sited between an applicant’s engineer and the Town’s. The Chairman replied that the Board had the option of going against the recommendations of the Town Engineer although this was a rare
occurrence. He added that, in this case, the applicant had agreed to a conditional approval of the application based on the Town Engineer’s approval of the plan and the applicant abiding by the comments given. James Nordstrom asked the applicant if they could speak with Dufresne-Henry, Inc. regarding this issue. Michael Koon replied that they had sent three letters to the Town Engineer since the time of the application’s conditional approval regarding these issues and that Amy Alexander had told them she would forward her opinions to the Board and what the Board chose to do with those opinions was up to them. Joseph Swiezynski noted that Amy Alexander was very difficult to deal with. The Chairman stated that the Board would wait to see what the Town Engineer’s reply was regarding the applicant’s responses to their issues and if it would be possible to amend the approval of the application based on new information. Earl
Sandford, LLS, PE, asked if the conditional approval was based on addressing the Town Engineer’s comments or satisfying them. James Nordstrom replied that the Town Engineer’s comments would need to be satisfied based on the terms of the application’s conditional approval and if this was not to be the case then the Board would need to determine what should be done going forward.
3. Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Swanson Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-22, for the Board’s action. (Drive-by prior to meeting)
This item addressed with item #4.
4. Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Popple Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-14, for the Board’s action. (Drive-by prior to meeting)
John Greenwood of R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC was present in the audience for this item. The Planning Assistant distributed the engineering plans for the proposed driveways of Lot #’s 6/32-14 & 22 for the Board’s review. Gordon Carlstrom asked John Greenwood if both driveways would be constructed with a negative slope off the road and would meet the Town’s 10% maximum grade requirements. John Greenwood replied that they would. James Nordstrom noted that one driveway design allowed drainage into the road and the other allowed for drainage away from the road, however, both appeared to meet the requirements of the Driveway Regulations. He added that while the driveway that drained into the roadway could be approved with the
standard conditions of approval the one that proposed drainage away from the roadway should be inspected by the Board after construction with As-Built plans submitted.
Don Duhaime stated that the culverts for the driveway of Lot #6/32-22 were not visible on the engineered plans. Douglas Hill noted that although not on the plan he had viewed these culverts at the site. John Greenwood stated that final inspections by the Board were required for several other driveways within the Popple Road development to assure compliance. James Nordstrom asked if As-Built plans or certification from Sandford Survey and Engineering was warranted after the construction of the driveways was completed. Douglas Hill noted that if Sandford Survey and Engineering certified the engineered plans upon completion of these driveways that would serve as an As-Built Plan.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #’s 05-051,
And 05-052 for Tax Map/Lot #’s 6/32-14 & 22, for proposed driveways, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway shall have two inches (2”) of
winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road; the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. As part of the approval for the
driveway of Lot # 6/32-22, it is stipulated that the plan will be revised to show the culvert at the driveway and that As-Built plans will be submitted upon the driveway’s completion. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
DONALD E. GARRETSON (APPLICANT/OWNER) Adjourned 6/28/05
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC., RICK MARTIN (APPLICANT)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/20 Lots
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 52
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He noted that this hearing was postponed and would be rescheduled at a later date.
9. A copy of a letter dated August 15, 2005, from Kristine A. Filteau, Manager, Kristine Filteau Contracting, LLC, to the Planning Board, Re: Rising Generation Daycare, Amendment to the Site Plan and extension request of current deadline, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Kristine Filteau and Lynn Strong were present for this item. The Chairman asked Kristine Filteau what extension length they requested. Kristine Filteau replied that the addition to the front of the existing building should be completed by June, 2006, and the rear addition by September, 2006. She asked if she could also submit an amended site plan this evening. James Nordstrom asked if any changes had been made to the plan. Kristine Filteau replied that the original plan reflected two 2-story additions, which had been deemed not feasible to construct and had been altered to one story each. She added that an existing trailer/portable classroom parked at the back of the property would be removed from the site once the additions were
completed. Gordon Carlstrom thought that these seemed to be significant changes to the plan that required an amended site plan. Douglas Hill asked if these amendments would in turn affect what number of children allowable at the daycare. Kristine Filteau replied that the number of students would not be affected and that the septic system had already been approved and installed based on the numbers provided on the plan. The Chairman asked what the proposed additions would be offsetting for usable space. Kristine Filteau explained that the additions would replace the space provided by the portable classroom. Gordon Carlstrom asked the square footage of the additions. Kristine Filteau replied that the maximum length allowed was 26 feet but would most likely be less than that. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the additions show on the plans were either not drawn to scale or significantly bigger than the front portion of the building.
Kristine Filteau explained that the amended site plan showed the two additions adding a total of 5,515 s.f. with no increase in the previously approved number of students allowed at the daycare. Gordon Carlstrom asked if that meant that 5,515 s.f. replaced 2, 295 proposed on the original plan. Kristine Filteau replied that the original calculations were incorrect and based on the usable square footage for the number of students rather than the actual dimensions. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he felt an amended site plan was indeed required due to these changes. Kristine Filteau asked if she could submit her amended plan at this hearing. The Chairman
replied that she could although the Board could not act on it because it was not submitted seven
days prior to tonight’s meeting.
Gordon Carlstrom asked what the line meeting the corner of the proposed addition in two places represented on the plan. Kristine Filteau replied that this line represented a fence. The Chairman thought that the applicant should submit an application to amend the site plan so that the information was correct going forward. Kristine Filteau explained that a note had been added to her amended site plan that stated the correct square footage of the proposed additions. She asked if it would be necessary to resubmit an application. The Chairman replied that he thought this was warranted in order to reflect the replacement of the trailer/portable classroom and the one story instead of two story additions proposed. James Nordstrom noted that
certified letter fees would be reinstated with a new application. The Chairman did not believe these fees would be substantial. Gordon Carlstrom added that because the dimensions of the structure had changed so significantly a new application should be submitted. Kristine Filteau noted that the footprint of the existing structure and additions had only been altered in the rear and not the front. The Chairman asked Kristine Filteau what she viewed the difference to be between a new application and an amendment. Kristine Filteau replied that because the footprint for the front portion of the structure had not changed and was previously approved the Building Permit process could continue for that section. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the front portion had changed because it was now proposed as a one-story addition that was approved as a two-story addition. The Planning Assistant asked what the original approval now represented. James
Nordstrom replied that once the amended approval was issued the original approval would be considered void. The Chairman stated that any information submitted would need to be in seven days prior to a scheduled meeting with the applicant. The Planning Assistant noted that because a new application was forthcoming information to that regard would be required 15 days before any scheduled meeting with the applicant.
Kristine Filteau asked if the extension previously granted for the application was now considered voided. Gordon Carlstrom replied it was a moot point as the applicant was no longer building what was approved on the original plan. Kristine Filteau noted that the square footage of the front addition had not been altered. Gordon Carlstrom replied that although the footprint had not changed the square footage been altered by half. Kristine Filteau noted that the additions were a mix of one and two stories. Gordon Carlstrom stated that Kristine Filteau had not mentioned this fact in her initial explanation of the amendment. The Chairman asked what the applicant wanted the extension for. Kristine Filteau replied that she wished to keep
the extension granted for the front addition proposed on the existing building because its square footage had not changed from the time of the original approval. The Chairman replied that he would consider an amendment to the plan if the Board had an accurate representation of what was changed from the original and then an extension for that portion would be considered. He added that in this way the future compliance hearing would clarify accurate information to the plan. Gordon Carlstrom asked when the applicant anticipated beginning construction. Kristine Filteau replied that they would like to begin construction on the front addition the first week of October, 2005. Gordon Carlstrom commented that he saw no reason why an amended plan could not be
prepared in time. James Nordstrom noted that all necessary information should be submitted to
the Planning Department by September, 12, 2005, so that the Board could act and possibly grant approval to the amended plan at the applicant’s next meeting scheduled for September 27, 2005.
Kristine Filteau asked how long it took for approval on a Building Permit since she could not make that request until the amended site plan was approved. Douglas Hill replied that it could be possible to get a Building Permit the Thursday following the Board’s meeting if the Building Inspector was informed ahead of time about the chronology of the application. Kristine Filteau noted that the Building Inspector was aware of the history of the application and what was currently occurring.
15. Schedule a compliance site walk for Indian Falls, LLC, Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/89, Wetland Crossings.
Gerry Perron of Lot #12/89-14 was present for this item. The Planning Assistant explained that the applicant initially wished to speak with the Board this evening regarding their findings regarding the compliance on the wetland crossing at the site but instead opted to discuss this with the Board during the September 10, 2005, site walk on the second phase of the development.
The Planning Assistant noted that the Board may wish to discuss issues with Lot #12/89-14 as the owner, Mr. Perron, was present in the audience. She read from the minutes of the prior meeting regarding this issue where Don Duhaime noted that the culvert of Lot #12/89-13 was not visible and needed headwalls and Lot #12/89-14’s appeared to be covered. Mr. Perron stated that he received a phone call from Earney Mayo who stated that the culvert issue on Lot #12/89-14 was delaying his compliance for the road. He noted that he was willing to do whatever was necessary to resolve this issue. The Chairman stated that the culvert on the right side of the driveway seemed to be two or three feet too short. Mr. Perron stated that if the Board preferred
that this pipe be extended he would do so. James Nordstrom asked who was responsible for the initial culvert installation. Mr. Perron replied that R.C. Veary did the installation and he was the general contractor and had built the house for his niece. James Nordstrom asked who secured the CUP’s for this lot. The Planning Assistant replied that the CUP’s were listed as acquired by Indian Falls, LLC, under their original application approval. Don Duhaime asked if the culverts were installed according to the plan. Gordon Carlstrom replied that many of the culverts were replaced per the Road Agent’s authorization opposed to having headwalls onsite. He added that a note on the plan reflected those changes. Mr. Perron noted that an existing culvert during the time of installation was removed and replaced while underground utilities were being installed and the culvert for his lot was noted to be rechecked. The
Chairman added that he recalled that rocks covered the outlet but the culvert was flowing.
The Planning Assistant wished to note to Mr. Perron that the culvert issue on his lot was not delaying Indian Falls, LLC’s road acceptance. Mr. Perron clarified that he had no connection with Indian Falls, LLC, and would correct any problems with the culverts. Gordon Carlstrom clarified that Mr. Perron should confirm that the inlets and outlets to his culvert were clear. Mr.
Perron replied that he would do so.
A compliance site walk for Indian Falls Road was scheduled for September 10, 2005, at 8:30 a.m.
14. Schedule a compliance site walk for Julie Dillon, 422 Riverdale Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/72.
A compliance site walk was scheduled for September 10, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. +/-
17. Daily road inspection report dated July 27, 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Highland Hills, was distributed for the Board’s information.
18. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the Pembroke Board of Adjustment for
August 24, 2005, Re: addition of two dish antennas to existing tower.
1. The minutes of August 9, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of September 27, 2005, with or without changes.
2. Approval of the minutes of July 26, 2005, with or without changes, distributed at the August 9, 2005, meeting. (No Copies)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of July 26, 2005, as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for James & Wilma Dane & Carol L. Hess, 184 Francestown & Pine Echo Roads, Tax Map/Lot #’s 5/6 & 5/7, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
This item was addressed at the end of the meeting.
6. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Susana LeClair Revocable Trust, Bedford Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/24, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
This item was addressed at the end of the meeting.
7. Schedule a compliance site walk for Roger Dignard, Dignard Architectural Services, to add home office, Tax Map/Lot #13/50, 146 South Hill Road.
The Planning Assistant stated that Mr. Dignard informed her that he assumed his site would be ready for a compliance walk at the end of September, 2005. The Chairman replied that he preferred that Mr. Dignard call the Planning Department when his site work was completed
before the Board scheduled a compliance hearing.
8. A copy of a letter dated August 15, 2005, from Emile R. Bussiere, Law Offices of Bussiere & Bussiere, to Peter Hogan, Chairman, New Boston Planning Board, Re: rezoning of Tax Map/Lot #15/16, Bedford Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman stated that this item would require the applicant to submit a petition to rezone the above noted property, which could then be considered for recommendation to the Town ballot by the Planning Board. James Nordstrom noted that such a petition would require a minimum of 25 signatures in support of rezoning.
10. A copy of a letter dated August 18, 2005, from Michael Dahlberg, to the Board, Re: Interpretation of Steep Slopes Ordinance for Tax Map/Lot #3/52-26, J&W Landscaping, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Board reviewed the Site Plan of J&W Landscaping. James Nordstrom stated that based on the existing conditions of the site two buildable lots did not exist, therefore, they wished to know if they could revert to the prior topography of the original subdivision before the bank was pushed back for the landscaping business to regain those lots which would comply with the Steep Slopes Ordinance. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he did not think this was an appropriate proposition and that the topography should be based on the current condition of the site and not the preconstruction contours. Douglas Hill noted that by the applicant’s rationale landowners could level their existing steep slopes to create buildable lots.
The Chairman read a portion of Mike Dahlberg’s letter: “ The preconstruction contours should be used. If the post-grading contours are used then any construction such as septic systems or roadway side slopes would lie within a Steep Slope District and any work undertaken would require a variance.” The Chairman stated believed Mr. Dahlberg’s interpretation was correct where a slope created from that type of construction should not be considered a steep slope. James Nordstrom noted that in the case of J&W Landscaping the site was reshaped from a raw piece of land. The Chairman clarified that he agreed with Mr. Dahlberg’s interpretations in the narrow scope of his question, i.e., 1:1 slopes for septic systems and
fill extensions for driveways should not be considered steep slopes. He noted that the same interpretation may not coincide with J&W Landscaping’s issue. The Board determined that the applicant should meet with the Board to further discuss this item.
MERRILL, GEORGE
Compliance Hearing/Phase III Bldg. #6
Major Site Plan/Storage Buildings
Location: Whipplewill Road & NH Route 114
Tax Map/Lot #3/63-13
Commercial “Com” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicant George Merrill and his spouse, Carol. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman asked if the silt fence had been replaced. George Merrill replied that he had reworked the alignment of the silt fence and had extended it to the existing ledge 300 feet back to the eastern side of the property. The Chairman noted that he had viewed the site recently and found it to be compliant. James Nordstrom added that the silt fencing had been his only issue at the time of the site walk and this had since been addressed. He asked if the outstanding fee of $91.00 had been paid. The Planning Assistant replied that it had not. George Merrill then submitted a check to the Planning Assistant for this amount.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm that C & G Ledges, LLC, by George Merrill, has complied with the fourth phase of the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to construct four 3,000 s.f. storage buildings in four phases in addition to the four previously approved 3,000 s.f. storage buildings at Whipplewill Road and NH Route 114, Tax Map/Lot #3/63-13, and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit on Building #6, to be issued by the Building Department. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
11. A copy of a letter dated August 18, 2005, from Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant to John and Natasha Benevides, 341 Twin Bridge Road, Re: driveway construction, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Planning Assistant explained that Betsy Dodge, Conservation Commission, was seeking the Board’s permission to perform an onsite inspection of the above noted property. She provided the Tax Map for the Board’s review and noted that a barn was being constructed on an existing hill and that there was the potential for substantial runoff of poorly drained soils, manure, etc., into the Piscataquog River. The Planning Assistant added that the barn constructed was also encroaching on abutters’ property. James Nordstrom stated that it appeared as though a wetland violation existed. The Planning Assistant agreed. She added that the Benevides did not have a Driveway Permit nor did they have 200 feet between the existing and new
driveways on the property. The Chairman stated that the Planning Board would not be the entity to authorize a site walk by the Conservation Commission and thought it was more of a zoning issue. The Planning Assistant asked what office would generate a letter of violation if a driveway was being constructed without the Board’s approval. Gordon Carlstrom replied that this would be a Zoning issue. The Planning Assistant stated that the office that handled Zoning issues felt that this was a Planning Department item, which was why she sent the letter. Gordon Carlstrom clarified that because the Board did not issue a Driveway Permit it was not their issue. James Nordstrom added that if a wetland violation existed this was also a Zoning concern that should be addressed by the Code Enforcement Officer. He added that the driveway issue was questionable as he did not know if the Zoning Regulations discussed Driveway Permits and that the latter
may only be included in the Subdivision Regulations. The Chairman stated that the Selectmen, Town Administrator and Building Department should clarify that matters like this were to be handled as part of Zoning and not Planning. Don Duhaime asked if the Planning Board was responsible for driveway issues such as this because they inspected driveways in the Town. Gordon Carlstrom replied that the Board dealt with legal driveways that had been permitted. The Chairman asked how much frontage the Benevides had on their property. The Planning Assistant was not sure but replied that the distance between the two driveways was less than the required 200 feet. The Chairman stated that in that case they would not be issued a Driveway Permit and would need to discontinue one of their two driveways. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the original driveway shared a common cut with a neighbor.
12. A copy of a letter received August 15, 2005, from Comprehensive Environmental Incorporated, to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Dates for Fall Stormwater workshops, was distributed for the Board’s information.
PUBLIC HEARING
Re: Tree cutting on Thornton, Clark Hill, Colburn, Hooper Hill, River, Riverdale, and Scobie Pond Roads, Scenic Roads.
David Crane, an arborist for PSNH and Gary Shelto, Vice President of Asplundh Tree, were present for this item. Gordon Carlstrom asked how the trees slated for removal were marked for viewing. David Crane replied that these trees were marked with blue flagging so as not to be confused with surveyor colors. The Chairman stated that he had no issue with the tree marked for removal on his road, Scobie Pond Road. Gordon Carlstrom clarified that any wood chips along with tree debris that landowners did not want would be transferred to the Highway Department. David Crane replied that he had spoken with the Road Agent who confirmed that he would assist with the trees if landowners wanted the debris removed and that a central location had been
established to dispose of wood chips. He added that since the last meeting he had viewed the piles left from the 2001 trimmings and noted the debris pile that remained at the intersection of Thornton Hill Road and Clark Hill Road. From the audience, Brandy Mitroff added that there were several more piles along Thornton Hill Road that were covered with brush. She added that at the intersection of Thornton Hill Road and NH Route 136 there were 10 logs piled by a large transformer, which she recalled to be a result of Asplundh’s previous tree cutting for PSNH. Brandy Mitroff further noted that in speaking with other people in the Town such tree debris was not an uncommon sight in other locations. David Crane stated that he had spoken with the arborist who oversaw this job in 2001 and that he did not recall any complaints coming in to his office. Brandy Mitroff noted that in case such as this people would often complain to the Town and this may
not get back to the appropriate source. David Crane added that the arborist he spoke with did remember that there was a lot of controversy regarding some work done on Clark Hill Road, however, this work was done by the phone company and not PSNH.
He stated that the debris at the intersection of Clark Hill Road and Thornton Road was obviously
a PSNH job and that he would return to view the debris site at the Route 136 junction, which he had not seen previously.
Brandy Mitroff clarified that the wood chips and any remaining wood that landowners did not want would go to the Highway Department. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he had confirmed this with the Road Agent and that the wood chips served as very good mulch cover, while the larger debris would go over the bank.
The Chairman MOVED to accept the proposal by PSNH for removal and trimming of trees on Thornton, Clark Hill, Colburn, Hooper Hill, River, Riverdale and Scobie Pond Roads, designated as scenic roads. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
David Crane stated that Gary Shelto had met with the Road Agent regarding the wood removal after cutting. Gordon Carlstrom asked if PSNH would be utilizing additional crews from Michigan for their job. David Crane replied that was correct as they were running behind schedule regarding their maintenance in the southern part of the State. Brandy Mitroff asked when the job was scheduled to begin. Gary Shelto replied that it was scheduled to begin after Labor Day in September, 2005, and that he would contact the Road Agent when they were set to begin work.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
13. Non-Public “Communication with legal counsel, Re: Group Home Permit Issue”
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to open the non-public session under RSA 91-A to discuss communication with counsel. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously - Peter Hogan - aye; James Nordstrom - aye; Gordon Carlstrom - aye; Don Duhaime - aye; and Doug Hill - aye.
The Board discussed a privileged and confidential letter from Town Counsel dated August 9, 2005, regarding the Donovan's proposed group home to be constructed on Tax Map/Lot #9/63-1, Bedford Road.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to close the non-public session under RSA 91-A to discuss communication with counsel. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously - Peter Hogan - aye; James Nordstrom - aye; Gordon Carlstrom - aye; Don Duhaime - aye; and Doug Hill - aye.
The Planning Board determined that a letter should be sent to Mr. Donovan informing him that at this time, it is Town Counsel's opinion, based on the Town's current Zoning
Ordinance, that no site plan review will be required for the proposed group home on Tax Map/Lot #9/63-1, Bedford Road.
5. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for James & Wilma Dane & Carol L. Hess, 184 Francestown & Pine Echo Roads, Tax Map/Lot #’s 5/6 & 5/7, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
The Chairman and Vice Chairman (in the Secretary’s absence), endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.
6. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Susana LeClair Revocable Trust, Bedford Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/24, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
The Chairman and Vice Chairman (in the Secretary’s absence), endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.
At 8:52 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Douglas Hill seconded the
motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien, Minutes Approved:
Recording Clerk
| 
