Planning Board – 08/22/2006
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Bob Furey, Don Duhaime and; ex-officio Dave Woodbury (filling in for Gordon Carlstrom). Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Dave Ely, Jack Munn, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, Joan MacDonald, Marcy Morton, Brandy Mitroff, Cyndie Wilson, Ken Lombard, Frank Welton, Rod Hansen, Burr Tupper, Ellen Kambol, Brian Gallant, Dave Elliot, Bob Todd, LLS, Rob Starace, Jonathan Willard, Burton Knight and Craig Heafield.
Presentation of completed Master Plan update to Planning Board by Master Plan Committee and SNHPC.
Present for this discussion were Master Plan Committee members Dave Ely, Marcy Morton, Frank Welton, Joan MacDonald and Ken Lombard. Also present was Jack Munn, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC).
Dave Ely stated that he would like to give a brief overview of the Master Plan update and wished to thank the Master Plan Committee members for the substantial work they had contributed over the last two and a half years. He noted that the New Boston Speaks gathering held in March of 2004 had resulted in the formation of 6 committees, one being the Planning and Zoning Committee which was sanctioned by the Planning Board and aided by SNHPC to update the Master Plan for the Town. Dave Ely added that in the summer of 2005 a questionnaire was mass mailed to residents for further input and had yielded 500 responses which provided the Master Plan Committee with more input from a good cross section of the Town. He further added that a Public Forum held in April, 2006 had also discussed several issues
concerning the Master Plan. Dave Ely clarified that one of the Committee’s goals was to gather as much support and information from Town residents as possible which he felt had been achieved.
Dave Ely stated that the Master Plan was comprised of two main components the first of which was inventory and analysis of physical, economical and social conditions of New Boston which contained 8 chapters. These chapters were as follows: Population, Existing Land Use, Housing, Economic Development, Transportation, Community Facility and Services, Natural Resources and Historic Preservation. He added that the second component dealt with Future Land Use and the future direction of the Town. Dave Ely noted that from information gathered the Master Plan Committee found that residents of the Town liked the quaint rural character of New Boston and wanted it to remain as it was. He explained that the Future Land Use chapter was written with principles in support of this and that SNHPC had done a
build-out analysis based on current growth which was unsettling. Dave Ely stated that the Future Land Use Map that was drawn up represented the entire crux of the Master Plan and incorporated smart growth principles which involved planning development versus allowing growth to happen randomly without planning. Dave Ely stated that the Future Land Use section identified 7 new land use districts and concepts which the Master Plan Committee recommended. He noted that certain principles that were applied would need to be researched and possibly altered along with Zoning
Regulations in order to maintain the Town’s character going forward. Dave Ely explained a
district identified was Village, with mixed usage possibilities, and Residential-
Agricultural/Open Space, renamed from the current Residential-Agricultural. He explained that the Committee recommended the development of an open space plan with this district as 2 acre minimum lots for subdivision along with 5 acre minimums for backlots were eating up much of the Town’s open space, therefore, a plan was needed to preserve farm and woodlands. Dave Ely added that updating the Cluster Ordinance to allow higher densities in cluster subdivisions would inversely provide possibilities for maintaining more green space in other areas. He explained that Transfer of Development Rights and Density Bonuses could be offered to developers as incentives to accomplish this. Dave Ely stated that another recommended district was Small Scale Planned Commercial which could be limited commercial
development. He added that the Town questionnaire had revealed that residents would not be against small retail businesses such as restaurants, medical buildings, etc. Dave Ely further added that another district to consider was a Scenic Corridor Overlay which would be along the Piscataquog River from the town center towards Goffstown. He explained that the Committee recommended a 300’ buffer along the river along with protecting land owners rights of development in this area at the same time. Dave Ely stated that the Limited Light Industrial currently comprised 5.5 acres along NH Route 13 and that Town was not in favor of a lot of industrial areas, therefore, the Committee did not encourage it. He added that any industrial impacts should not cause pollution or compromise the architectural character or infrastructure of the Town. Dave Ely stated that the Multi-Family Residential Overlay District saw great discussion by
the Master Plan Committee and that the best areas for it needed the consideration of Zoning. He explained that this district spoke to median wage earning residents such as teachers, policemen and offspring of current residents who were young adults and first time home buyers that would like to afford and remain in the Town. He noted that there would be the need for performance zoning to address soils, access, slopes, wetlands and aquifer protection and so on. Dave Ely stated that the Conservation District was recommended for areas along the Piscataquog River, forests, prime wetlands and ponds and also the New Boston Tracking Station which, if it fell out of the Federal Government’s ownership, would be considered a prime area with a 25 acre development minimum as it was a well protected site. He noted that the “Recommendations and Implementations” chapter had been eliminated as it closely paralleled the Goals and Objectives noted in
the Master Plan Update. Dave Ely added that the use of these Goals and Objectives along with the Future Land Use chapter should be guidelines for the town moving forward.
Dave Woodbury asked who would ultimately adopt the revised Master Plan. The Coordinator replied that the Planning Board had the authority to adopt the Master Plan at a public hearing. Dave Woodbury then asked how Zoning would be affected by adoption of the new Master Plan. The Coordinator explained that Jack Munn of SNHPC would next present his audit of the Town’s Regulations based on smart growth principles and the Master Plan update, and give his recommendations for Zoning changes and work to be done in the future for ballot vote in 2007 and 2008.
Bob Furey asked if a Future Land Use Map was available for review. Jack Munn then
presented this map and noted as an aside that the Master Plan was being submitted as an advisory document only. Dave Ely explained that districts were identified on the map as those that would be beneficial to the Town. He noted that water bodies were shown in blue and were not considered a district. Dave Ely went on to note the districts and their shadings with Conservation in dark green, Residential-Agricultural/Open Space in light green and Multi-Family Overlay in brown. He also noted the small area of Limited Light Industrial along NH Route 13’s gravel pits near the Goffstown town line and potentially along areas of NH Route 114. From the audience Brandy Mitroff asked what the curiously shaded area was on the Future Land Use Map. Dave Ely explained that this was the Multi-Family Overlay
District whose shading was altered as it overlaid certain areas of the map. Brandy Mitroff then asked why scenic corridors were not included along the main branches of the Piscataquog River on the Future Land Use Map. Ken Lombard, Conservation Commission, replied that there were pieces but nothing that qualified as scenic corridors along the branches of the River. Marcy Morton, Master Plan Committee member, noted that this had been discussed by the Committee and there was a minimum length involved when a tract of land could be considered a corridor. Ken Lombard noted that using the State’s criteria for identifying these lengths had been discussed. Dave Ely continued with the Future Land Use Map identifications and noted that the Small Scale Planned Commercial District was shaded in salmon and followed NH Route 13 north along with NH Route 77 towards the town of Weare, NH, and towards the Village. He added that a provision had also been made
on the map for a future satellite village that may evolve in the area along NH Route 13 near the former location of Shipwreck’s restaurant. Dave Ely cautioned that if this were to come about special requirements should be made for its growth and that it should match the character of the Town. Jack Munn wished to note that the map provided general locations of recommended districts to be used as guidelines. Dave Ely agreed. Jack Munn further noted that they hoped to provide, as a final product, copies of this map that would list the Goals and Objectives on the reverse side so that various Town entities including the Planning Board could employ it as an active and usable document. Bob Furey asked why the Conservation District followed the Piscataquog River more readily in a north easterly direction but not on the other side of Town. Dave Ely replied that the south western portion of the River was along a less heavily traveled route and the
conservation areas differed in that locale. Jack Munn added that there was less conservation land existing along River Road and he saw it as a threatened area. From the audience Bob Todd stated that he disagreed as there was approximately 4.5 miles of conservation land along that section of the River. Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, asked if the Future Land Use Map represented the current status of the existing conservation land and not what was hoped for in the future. Jack Munn replied that was correct. Cyndie Wilson wished to commend and thank the Master Plan Committee for their efforts and added that she especially liked the recommendation of a Multi-Family Overlay District for affordable housing.
Jack Munn asked that the Board compile a list of questions they may have based on tonight’s presentation in order that the Master Plan Committee might come back to address them, or, if they felt that the update was ready in lieu of certain last minute corrections, set a date for a public hearing if they preferred. Dave Ely noted that the sooner the Master Plan was accepted the sooner a Warrant article could be prepared for the March, 2007 ballot. James Nordstrom asked if the deadline date for the first posting was in late November, 2006. The Coordinator replied that this was correct and that the latest time to schedule a hearing was January, 2007. The Chairman stated that the majority of Board members had not been able to read the full
Master Plan update thus far due to its printing schedule but as it was a guideline only he was unsure what changes they would feel qualified to recommend. Dave Ely suggested that the Board should be aware of the guidelines and principles discussed in the Master Plan update and determine if anything seemed unwieldy or if certain specifications should be incorporated. The Chairman noted that the Master Plan should be written in a broad sense so that its interpretation was purposely flexible versus overly explicit. James Nordstrom stated that he had read through half of the Master Plan update and felt that it was comprehensive and well written. He added that although he saw no issues with the document thus far the Board should be familiar with the whole content. The Chairman thought that the Board could have
the entire piece read by the next scheduled Planning Board meeting. The Coordinator asked if a public hearing on the Master Plan update could then be scheduled after that meeting occurred. The Chairman replied that it could but then asked if it would be possible to incorporate any changes the Board might have along with a public hearing at the next meeting to save time. Brandy Mitroff thought that the public’s input alone may make for a lengthy meeting not inclusive of the Board’s input at the same hearing. The Coordinator noted that unlike Zoning there was no legal requirement for two public hearings on the Master Plan, however, a second hearing could be scheduled as a courtesy if necessary to incorporate any changes made at a first public hearing on the subject. Bob Furey asked when the Master Plan update documents would be made available to the public. Jack Munn replied that the date of September 1, 2006, was discussed. The
Chairman asked if these documents would be made available online also. The Coordinator replied that they would but that the Town had an obligation to provide printed copies to residents if they requested them. It was decided that anyone seeking a full color bound copy of the document would be charged a standard fee to be determined but at least $25.00 which was the cost of the old plan, or could request that only certain sections be copied in black and white for a per page fee to be determined. Dave Ely suggested that the section on Goals and Objectives would be a fair representation of the Master Plan’s intent and would involve less copying along with the chapter on Future Land Use. The Chairman stated that the public hearing on the Master Plan Update would be scheduled for September 12, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2006
1. Approval of minutes of July 25, 2006, distributed at the August 8, 2006, meeting, with or without changes. (No Copies)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of July 25, 2006, as written. Don
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Discussion, Re: Craig Heafield, Tax Map/Lot #6/22, 688 River Road.
The Planning Assistant stated that Mr. Heafield planned to be present for this item later in the evening. The Board determined that they would discuss this item when Mr. Heafield was present.
3. Driveway Permit application for Stephen Curtis, 283 Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/67-1, for the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to meeting)
Don Duhaime stated that he had viewed the proposed driveway location and felt it had sight distance issues. James Nordstrom added that the proposed driveway also did not meet the 200’ distance requirement for a secondary driveway as required in the recently adopted Driveway Regulations. The Planning Assistant noted that the Road Agent felt that the proposed secondary driveway was unnecessary.
James Nordstrom MOVED to deny Driveway Permit application # 06-035 based on the newly adopted Driveway Regulations’ requirement for a minimum of 200’ of distance between a primary and secondary driveway. Don Duhaime seconded the motion.
The Chairman wished to include in the motion’s discussion that the Road Agent felt the proposed secondary driveway was unnecessary. The motion PASSED unanimously.
4. Endorsement of a Condex Plan for Right Way Builders, Inc., Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/52-1, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
Because of multiple signature sheets it was determined that this item could be addressed at the end of the meeting.
5. A copy of an email received August 11, 2006, from David Preece, SNHPC, to the Board, Re: training sessions for new Planning Board members, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that the above noted training session was scheduled for October 20, 2006, in the afternoon and that this date was found to be inconvenient. She asked if Board members might prefer an evening session instead and that they were free to offer presentation and discussion ideas as well. James Nordstrom stated that afternoons or evenings were fine for him. The Chairman noted that he could not make an afternoon session. He further noted that the email referenced new Planning Board members and wondered if the sessions may be more appropriate for Douglas Hill and Don Duhaime. Don Duhaime stated that he would prefer evenings. The Coordinator stated that she would forward any topics of interest for the session from Board members to SNHPC.
6. A copy of a memorandum dated August 4, 2006, from David Preece, SNHPC, to the
Board, Re: SNHCP Regional Comprehensive Plan Community Outreach Video Series,
was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that copies of the above noted series were available in the Planning Department.
7. A copy of a letter dated August 8, 2006, from Robert E. Bollinger, Robert E. Bollinger Engineering, PLLC, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: traffic and transportation services, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that this firm dealt mostly with traffic studies and she would keep the firm’s name on file for the future.
8. A copy of a letter dated August 8, 2006, from SNHPC, to Rick Matthews, New Boston
Central School, Re: 2006 SNHPC Student Competition, was distributed for the Board’s information.
9. A copy of a fax received August 14, 2006, from Dorothy and Jessica Eisenhaure, to the Board, Re: request for extension on Conditions Precedent, was distributed for the Board’s action.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the extension requested in the letter dated August 14, 2006, by Dorothy and Jessica Eisenhaure to January 31, 2007. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
10. A copy of an email received August 14, 206, from Brian Dorwart, Road Committee, to the Planning Department, Re: dam classifications, was distributed for the Board’s discussion.
Dave Woodbury stated that even though upcoming revisions to State law may no longer classify the dam in question as such, the consensus of the Selectmen was that they preferred not to accept the dam and if so would require a PE’s stamp certifying that it was not a dam. He added that the Road Committee’s position on the subject was that the Selectmen not recommend anything classified as a dam. James Nordstrom noted that even with impending State revisions anything classified as a dam before August 18, 2006, would still be classified as such. The Chairman stated that the applicant in question had the option of reapplying for a detention pond permit and following the instructions outlined in the flow chart provided on page #3 of the NH Dam Bureau’s flow
chart as submitted by Brian Dorwart with his e-mail. James Nordstrom noted that he had made similar inquiries regarding other dam scenarios and had gotten different answers as to how one would proceed. The Chairman stated that the applicant needed to change the dam status in order to declassify the storm water detention design on his plan.
James Nordstrom wished to clarify that in regard to the comments provided by the Road Committee it was understood that throughout the permitting process of the subdivision the Planning Department never received any communication from the Road Committee advising that the Planning Board should not accept the dam and that this advice was not brought forward until after conditional approval of the application was granted. The Chairman replied that this was the
11. A copy of a letter dated August 10, 2006, from David Elliot, to the Board, Re: Herb Gathering, waiver request, was distributed for the Board’s discussion.
The Planning Assistant stated that Mr. Elliot would be present for this discussion later in the evening. The Chairman noted that his discussion may mean that Dave Elliot not need to make the trip to the meeting. He then reviewed Mr. Elliot’s justifications for his waiver request which were that in light of the Herb Gathering’s need for more parking spaces he wished to amend his current Site Plan and rename 5 parking spots for the business and 2 residential spots to 7 spots for the business and also request an additional driveway to a garage he intended to build on the opposite side of his home for residential use. James Nordstrom noted that a Driveway Application for a secondary driveway had been denied by the Board earlier in the evening even though the
circumstances of that request were very different. He added that as long as Mr. Elliot’s intentions were made clear he would not have as much issue with this waiver request. The Chairman noted that the secondary driveway proposed by David Elliot was not the required 200’ distance from the primary driveway. The Coordinator clarified that the distance was 75’. The Chairman further clarified that David Elliot was seeking to expand the parking for the home business and adding a garage for residential use which seemed to be a Zoning issue. James Nordstrom thought that David Elliot had a valid argument for amending his plan.
Don Duhaime referenced the earlier Driveway Application of the evening and stated that if the Board denied one application because it did not meet the criteria of the Driveway Regulations they should deny both. He thought that Mr. Elliot had ample room to make additional parking spots available for customers along the existing driveway. Don Duhaime noted that the proposed garage was a future intention and if Mr. Elliot already had a plan in place for it he might look at the scenario differently. Bob Furey stated that he agreed with Don Duhaime’s comments. Dave Woodbury stated that he was not familiar with the application as he was not seated on the Board during the time of the initial proposal and although he was sympathetic to David Elliot’s needs the
Driveway Regulations needed to be considered. He thought that it appeared there had been greater justification for denying the previous Driveway Application this evening than this one but reiterated that he was unfamiliar with this application and would likely abstain from any vote that was called for tonight. The Chairman felt that the
Board’s consensus was that a different proposal was needed from the applicant, therefore, they would table the discussion until David Elliot was present later in the evening.
13. Endorsement of a Condex Site Plan for Charles Noe, Hemlock Drive, Tax Map/Lot
#3/52-24 by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
Because of multiple signature sheets it was determined that this item could be addressed at the end of the meeting.
15. A copy of a memorandum dated August 22, 2006, from Nicola Strong, Planning
Coordinator, to the Board, Re: Start-Up of 2004-2012 Capital Improvements Plan Process, was distributed for the Board’s information. (No Copies)
Discussion of Smart Growth Regulation Audit and possible schedule of Regulation updates.
Jack Munn, SNHPC, was present for this discussion. He explained that the State employed Smart Growth Principles which offered a planned approach to development: compact development, mixed land use (to protect rural character), and continuity of transportation. He noted that some general questions could be raised after looking through the Town’s Regulations to see whether the Ordinances addressed these principles. Jack Munn stated that for tonight’s discussion he had prepared a brief paper to educate the Board and offer ideas. He recommended that the Board review this paper which he could discuss in further detail later on. Jack Munn stated that for this evening’s discussion he would address its highlights and then a strategy could be planned
for Ordinance updates which would take place over what he approximated to be a 2 year period.
In addressing the topic of Compact Development and the possibility of having what would be considered traditional town center development in the Village, Jack Munn stated that this was basically unattainable because there was no town water or sewer present. The option for mixed lot sizes based on State standards for well and septic could be an alternative to consider. He added that residential zoning encompassed 90% of the Town, therefore, a solution to encouraging compact development would be to study the Village, look at lot characteristics, setbacks, and frontages, and ascertain what lot sizes were acceptable so as not to jeopardize existing lots in the area or compromise existing wells and septic systems. Jack Munn noted that the information outlining the Village
District in the Master Plan update should also be considered as 3 acre lot sizing was currently necessary for industrial and commercial zones, therefore, encouraging the combining of such lots and subdividing would be difficult. Appropriate ways to address minimum lot sizing should therefore be considered.
The next principle discussed was Rural Character. Jack Munn stated that with current 2 acre zoning being the standard outside the Village and on the fringes of the Town encouraging the Smart Growth Principle of Compact Development would allow for the consideration of higher density areas and perhaps the proposed future satellite village. He added that the Forestry Conservation District had a 25 acre minimum lot requirement and was restricted to the New Boston Tracking Station as of now. Jack Munn stated that an Open Space Plan would outline better areas for this district as recommended in the Master Plan update. He noted that he was preparing Open Space Plans for 1 or 2 other communities this year which were based on grant funding and that if the Town would like to
have one prepared they could let him know.
Jack Munn stated that Residential-Agricultural Open Space was a good concept that
could be further improved upon with an Open Space Plan. He added that revising and improving the Town’s cluster residential standards would also be beneficial as it would protect property owners abutting these areas.
Jack Munn then addressed the subject of whether residential uses were allowed in the Town center. He stated that the center was zoned mostly Commercial and Residential-Agricultural with some Residential-One Districts beyond it and that only limited institutional and home businesses were permitted in the “R-A” Districts which was good because it encouraged employment based opportunities. Jack Munn stated that the Town should think about residential uses and the mixing of uses. He noted that New Boston’s Zoning Ordinance was pyramid based with large districts at the top allowing only limited uses. Jack Munn further noted that in light of this fact implementing Smart Growth Principles would make a difference because continued growth based on economic
conditions without them may spawn further requests for sprawl type development into the existing gravel pits, for example.
Jack Munn stated that the Town’s Zoning Ordinance did not allow for compact small scale uses like corner stores near residential development and that a Village District Zoning or similar small scale concept would be beneficial. He added that research suggested a good Jobs/Housing Balance would be 1.5 housing units per job as a guideline. Jack Munn noted that New Boston had 0.37 jobs per 1 dwelling unit (1,576 housing units and 582 employed residents) which was not unsatisfactory. He further noted that the Master Plan update also outlined the need for small scale services in the Commercial District.
Jack Munn stated that the Town required a minimum of 25% open space or green space according to the Cluster Ordinance and stated that it should be considered if that were enough and if it would contain contiguous or marginal pieces of land with contiguous parcels as the goal. Again he added that Open Space Planning would be beneficial and that natural resource inventories could be conducted also. Jack Munn further added that another good option from a regulatory standpoint would be to work with the Cluster regulations which could be done right away.
The next topic was Energy Conservation by way of landscaping and orientation of buildings to aid solar energy. Jack Munn stated that the Subdivision Regulations did not require shade trees but this could be easily addressed and would aid energy conservation and aesthetics as part of Site Plan reviews without becoming too onerous on an applicant. He added that there were programs and booklets available to encourage energy efficiency and if the Town deemed this one of its more major issues in addressing its Ordinances then they may want to sanction a local energy advisory committee.
Regarding water quality Jack Munn stated that FEMA was coming out with some
revised rate maps shortly and a public hearing would probably be required to address this. He added that Land Use Regulations would need to be revamped to encourage best management practices and that the Town’s Stormwater Management Plans and Steep Slopes were good tools but there were other innovative ways to deal with drainage. Jack Munn suggested that the town encourage low impact development.
Jack Munn explained that the Town did not have any age restricted ordinances currently and mainly encouraged and allowed for single family homes with good regulations for accessory dwelling units and manufactured housing. He suggested that the Town may wish to give some thought to a restricted housing ordinance for different styles of homes.
On the principle of Transportation Jack Munn explained that connectivity between roads in the Town should be encouraged and thought should be given to a block standard where, for example, every 1,200’ feet of road had a connecting road. He noted that State standards were currently being revised to lower excess requirements for subdivision streets such as widths. Jack Munn added that the Town’s Subdivision Regulations required that new paved roads be 22’ in width which was fairly narrow but not excessively so. He suggested that narrower widths could be considered in some instances to reduce developer expenses as long as they could accommodate emergency vehicles and adequately address drainage. Jack Munn then addressed parking by noting that the
typical minimum standards in Zoning for parking in areas such as the Town center and commercial areas did not appear excessive, however, there was no maximum ratio or cap stated and even though large development in the center of Town was unlikely it would be a good idea to have a limit noted. He added that off street parking was allowed within 800’ of a building and to take things a step further consideration may be given to compact spaces in addition to standard sized.
Jack Munn suggested that the Town consider affordable housing, conservation, natural resource protection, limited economic development and mixed use concepts as guiding principles going forward in order to narrow revisions to Ordinances. He added that if the topic of affordable housing was deemed most important then the Village District Study and multi-family overlay would be good first steps and although significant work was involved it was doable and he felt that revisions to Ordinances could be drafted in time for March, 2007. Jack Munn further added that if the Town determined natural resources and conservation as a priority then they may want to look into an Open Space Plan and shoreline protection, wildlife corridors and aquifer protection also. He noted that a
groundwater protection ordinance would be a good idea. He finished by noting that if Economic Development was the Board’s top priority then Small Scale Commercial Development should be explored, again with a Village District Study as a first step.
In closing Jack Munn suggested that thought be given to larger issues and recommendations for new zones or districts as they applied to existing Ordinances and how those might be revised. He thought a first year priority would be affordable housing followed by conservation and economic small scale commercial zoning the following year. Jack Munn knew that the Board must already have some ideas for changes they would like to see in Ordinances and that SNHPC could best help by looking at the larger Ordinance revisions. He stressed that the Planning Board needed to be directly involved in this process as they would be the entity that recommended or did not recommend these changes. Jack Munn suggested that between now and next time the Board should come up with their
ideas for changes to the regulations and compare them to the audit. The Board scheduled the next meeting for September 12, 2006, to compare and discuss these ideas.
Discussion Re: Stuart Clark Insurance
Brian Gallant was present for this discussion. The Chairman stated that although he was aware that parking issues were Brian Gallant’s main concern the Board wanted a Site Plan for the property because one was never done and although the site was grandfathered to do as he proposed regarding the parking it was not something that was categorically allowed. Brian Gallant stated that he did want to address the parking issue accordingly but was only a tenant, not the owner of the building. The Chairman explained to Brian Gallant that he needed to get the owner of the site to allow him to be a representative for a Site Plan of his property and that the Site Plan needed to be based on current Regulations. Brian Gallant submitted a small sketch of the site noting the
distance from the corner of the existing building to the road to measure 10’. He asked if the Town had a rule for parking setbacks. The Chairman replied that he did not believe that the Town allowed business parking on a public roadway. The Coordinator explained that the issue involved State and Town rights-of-way. James Nordstrom noted that the property needed its boundary lines established and the land that was associated with the existing building laid out. He added that based on the right-of-way layout with NH Route 13 and Maple Street the parking area may not be owned by the site on which the building was located. James Nordstrom further added that establishing these facts would reveal what could be done about the parking as parking setbacks were related to boundary lines. Brian Gallant asked if the Tax Maps would be helpful. James Nordstrom replied that Tax Maps were for assessment purposes. Brian Gallant stated that
the site owner was a hands-off type of personality and had not advised him in any way about the parking. He asked if he could delineate parking lines as he would like the issue addressed before the winter season. The Chairman replied that the Board would first require a Site Plan which would involve the scope of the business, a checklist of the Board’s requirements and an accurate sketch of the property with marked boundary lines. He added that the Board would also forward this Site Plan to the Fire Department, Police Department and Highway Department in an effort to ascertain where patrons of the business could legally park.
Brian Gallant asked if the Police Department had the discretion currently to say where customers could park. The Chairman replied that was correct. The Coordinator clarified that Stuart Clark Insurance was one of two businesses that were on the site. The Chairman thought, therefore, that the owner of the property needed to become involved and first allow Mr. Gallant to represent the area he was renting. Brian Gallant stated that the business dealt mostly with customers over the phone, however, he did not want any customers ticketed who chose to come to the site. Brandy Mitroff wondered why the parking issue had arisen now when it had never been an issue for the previous business on site. Brian Gallant replied that the Police Department had noticed head-in
parking and had informed him that this was not allowed. The Chairman reiterated that Brian Gallant needed to obtain the property owner's authority to represent a Site Plan which the Board would then submit to the Police Department for their review. Brian
Gallant stated that he would contact owner Bob Dodge to seek this authorization. He added that he was very concerned about liability with this issue. The Chairman stated that the main issue was parking and that no one was looking to prevent Mr. Gallant from running his business. Dave Woodbury noted that the main issue surrounding the parking was whether or not the public way was being blocked and while he was unsure of the limits of the public way on Maple Street there were most likely obvious limits on the adjoining NH Route 13. He added that the Police Department probably concluded that parking at the business was obscuring Maple Street, therefore, anything generated as part of the Site Plan needed to address the location of the public way on Maple Street. Dave Woodbury thought that figuring this out could
be a difficult task but information might be available on the recorded deed for the site.
Brian Gallant asked if the owner was uncooperative if he would need to go by what the Police Department stated regarding parking. Dave Woodbury replied that in exchange for the rent Mr. Gallant was paying the owner should give him some consideration regarding this issue. The Chairman noted that the Site Plan needed to detail hours of operation and any items relating to safety on site for the business. Brian Gallant reiterated that the site was grandfathered and asked if the Site Plan would need to incorporate all current Regulations that applied. The Chairman replied that the grandfathering status would hold but would still require an amended Site Plan for Stuart Clark Insurance and bringing the plan as close to current Regulations as was legally possible in
consideration of its grandfathered status. Dave Woodbury stated that it should be noted to the owner that having a Site Plan was of value to the property which would be helpful if he ever chose to sell the property. The Chairman noted that if Mr. Gallant and the other tenant (jewelry store owner) wished to work on the Site Plan together they may also want to request having any fees encumbered in the process deducted from their rent. He added that Mr. Gallant should not be nervous about his business being disallowed but focus on the fact that it was the owner’s responsibility to have a Site Plan approved and on file. He felt that the owner would be cooperative and that the Police Department would also be helpful. Brian Gallant asked if the site would be considered a Minor Site Plan. The Chairman replied that it would.
James Nordstrom asked if the site had ever housed two separate businesses before as this could impact certain grandfathered aspects. From the audience Bob Todd offered that at a previous time the site had housed a real estate agency and an antiques store. Dave Elliot offered that Stuart Clark had started in this building and when the fly shop started it had been a second business.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
11. A copy of a letter dated August 10, 2006, from David Elliot, to the Board, Re: Herb Gathering, waiver request, was distributed for the Board’s discussion. (first discussed on page 6 – continued discussion with David Elliot now present in the audience)
The Chairman told David Elliot that that Board did not feel that his justification for a waiver request to the secondary driveway proposal was adequate in light of the recently
approved Driveway Regulations as the distance between his existing and proposed driveway would only be 75’ versus 200’. He clarified that one part of the justification that was palatable was that the proposed secondary driveway would be a better way to access the garage Mr. Elliot planned to construct at his residence in the future. David Elliot noted that the location he proposed for the secondary driveway was the safest on the property and would afford the least amount of a common driveway appearance. He stated that his reason for this proposal was the occasional heavy traffic flow to the home business at his residence, therefore, opting for a single curb cut with the driveway splitting off from the existing one would create the same problem.
David Elliot stated that the proposed location of the secondary driveway was the only location on the property that suited the least amount of excavation and the best line of sight. The Chairman asked what David Elliot’s time line was for constructing the garage he referenced. David Elliot replied that if this issue was resolved then his next step would be to seek a Building Permit to build the garage. The Chairman asked if David Elliot intended to have the secondary driveway installed in order to construct the garage. David Elliot replied that was correct.
The Chairman asked the Board their thoughts on the subject. James Nordstrom thought that the argument David Elliot presented was a good one and differed from the driveway application that was denied earlier in the evening. He noted that the business was located on residential property, therefore, mixed uses existed. James Nordstrom further noted that it was not possible to move the proposed driveway upslope 75’, therefore, he needed to construct a garage and provide reasonable access to it. Dave Woodbury thought that the need was greater for this application that the earlier one that was denied. James Nordstrom agreed and thought that the previously denied application could resolve its issue by extending its existing driveway while in Mr. Elliot’s
case that alternative would cause greater disturbance to his site.
Dave Woodbury stated that he had not been seated on the Board when Mr. Elliot’s application was first presented and asked what would be involved if the proposed secondary driveway were moved to accommodate the 200’ rule of the Driveway Regulations. James Nordstrom replied that grading issues would result. David Elliot added that the existing leach field located in front of the barn would also be affected but the primary issue would be that there was at least 10’ of vertical slope going up to the site from the edge of the road and sight lines would be impacted from NH Route 136. Dave Woodbury clarified that accommodating 200’ of distance between the driveways seemed an issue of physical impossibility by practical standards. David Elliot agreed
and noted that the reason why the existing driveway no longer suited the site was that the business generated too much traffic on the property at certain times of the year. James Nordstrom clarified that David Elliot wished to construct his future garage on the end of the existing residence upslope from the gift shop. David Elliot submitted a sketch of the buildings on site noting the location of the existing barn and slopes involved.
James Nordstrom stated that David Elliot’s scenario and that of the driveway application denied earlier in the evening looked very similar on paper but actually had different aspects. The Chairman added that a waiver request had been submitted for this application. Dave Woodbury further added that the applicant was entitled to have the Board consider this waiver. The Chairman noted that the waiver request also included an amendment to the Site Plan where existing parking spaces for the business would be reclassified from residential to customer. Dave Woodbury recalled that he had previously stated his likelihood of abstention from a vote if a motion were made on this application tonight but now felt that he was more educated on the subject and more inclined to
grant the waiver. Don Duhaime noted that a former applicant and Carriage Road resident had never been given the option to submit a waiver for his proposal of a second curb cut on his property and was merely denied by the Board. The Chairman replied that a waiver policy to the Driveway Regulations was not yet instituted at the time of that application. James Nordstrom added that the Carriage Road applicant’s situation was also very different from Mr. Elliot’s. David Woodbury thought that the Carriage Road scenario was more vanity or convenience while his was a practical necessity. Bob Furey stated that he did not dispute the compelling argument presented by Mr. Elliot for a secondary driveway and felt that its proposed location seemed appropriate. He did, however, feel that the Board would see more waiver requests presented by applicants with similar issues going forward and thought that if the Board was to consider approving this
Driveway Application then good reasons should be on record such as safety. Bob Furey noted that given the Board’s option to now grant such waivers he believed this was an application that he would consider approving. Don Duhaime recalled that the Board had previously discussed the importance of minimizing curb cuts when considering the approval of the Driveway Regulations. He thought that there had to be a way for Mr. Elliot to use his existing driveway. Don Duhaime noted that the Driveway Regulations had just been accepted by the Board and Mr. Elliot was the first applicant to request a waiver which the Board was easily granting. David Elliot stated that if he did not have the permitted secondary use on his property he would not be proposing the secondary driveway and he was seeking to separate business parking from residential parking during seasonally busy times. The Chairman asked what David Elliot would do if he did not have the home
business on his property. David Elliot replied that he would locate the future garage on the southern end of his residence.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to grant the waiver requested in the letter by David Elliot
dated August 10, 2006. James Nordstrom seconded the motion. The motion PASSED with James Nordstrom, David Woodbury and Bob Furey voting AYE and Don Duhaime ABSTAINING.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to amend the Site Plan of Dave Elliot-Herb Gathering from 4 business parking spaces to 7. James Nordstrom seconded the motion.
Dave Woodbury asked if the Board had held previous discussions regarding increasing the spaces for the business from 4 to 7. The Chairman replied that they had. He explained that the plan had been initially presented as a Major Site Plan which had
required a minimum of 4 parking spaces for the business. He added that the plan was
inadvertently drawn up with 5 spaces and also showed the 2 residential spots, therefore,
these were now being combined to 7 parking spots for the business. The Chairman
concluded by stating that the residential parking spaces were then intended to be accommodated by the applicant’s proposed secondary driveway.
The motion PASSED with James Nordstrom, Bob Furey and David Woodbury voting AYE and Don Duhaime ABSTAINING.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #06-029 for a
proposed secondary driveway for access to the existing residence, 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 driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED with James Nordstrom, Bob Furey and David Woodbury voting AYE and Don Duhaime ABSTAINING.
David Elliot asked if there were new cross sections for driveway contained in the Driveway Regulations. The Chairman replied that this information could be obtained from the Planning Department and online.
LOCUS FIELD, LLC
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Subdivision/NRSPR/Condominium
Location: Salisbury Road
Tax Map/Lot #13/15-2
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, Rob Starace of Locus Field, LLC, and Dave Elliot.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that this was the applicant’s third similar duplex to condex conversion that the Board had seen. He noted that this application was slightly different as it addressed an existing kettle hole on the site which was a protected area. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that a Declaration of Covenants for the kettle hole had been prepared. He added that two wells had been constructed on site, interior work done to the condex and a septic system grubbed out and installed. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that this condex had the same footprint as the previous two with some minor floor plan changes.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waiver request captioned in a letter by Bob Todd, LLS, for the requirement of Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies, dated
August 7, 2006. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Locus Field, LLC, by Rob
Starace, Subdivision and Non-Residential Site Plan Review, Condominium Conveyance,
Location: Salisbury Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-2, Residential-Agricultural “R-A”
District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked if the were any outstanding issues with the plan. The Coordinator asked why wetlands were noted on the State Subdivision Approval for the lot when there were none. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he was unsure and thought that because it was a standard note which may have been erroneously added. James Nordstrom noted that this was a common occurrence that caused concern on many permits.
There was then some discussion by the Board as an issue was raised about a compliance hearing never being held for the applicant’s previous condex approval on site. The Coordinator stated that the first condex on site had been built to plan so the Board interpreted that as an As-Built while the second condex was carried forward as a duplicate of the first when, procedurally, it should not have been. The Board determined that a drive-by compliance site walk could be held to resolve the issue. Dave Elliot stated that grading for the condex site should be completed in the upcoming week.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Condex Site Plan, Salisbury Crossing, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-2, Salisbury Road, Locus Field, LLC, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the
checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Submission of any outstanding application fees and the fees for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be September 30, 2006, 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 prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. All site improvements are to be completed as per the approved site plans.
2. The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that all improvements, including installation of sprinkler systems in each unit, 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;
3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted;
4. A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of any Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy, or both. No occupancy/use of the building shall be
permitted until the site improvements as noted have been completed, and a site inspection and compliance hearing held.
The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be September 30, 2006, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing as noted in item #4 above. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Coordinator suggested that since time seemed to be a factor for this applicant a compliance hearing should be scheduled for the next Board meeting as notice letters would need to be mailed to abutters prior to that date. The Chairman asked when the exterior lights noted on the plan would be installed. Rob Starace replied that they would be installed the next day. The Coordinator stated that the Planning Department would need to be informed that Board members had performed drive-bys of the site by September 1, 2006. Rob Starace noted that Dave Elliot needed some time to finish the final grading. The Chairman asked if the Board would be able to drive by the site and check that all work was completed by the following weekend. Rob Starace was agreeable to
that time frame.
WILLARD, JONATHAN & JESSICA
Compliance Hearing/Public Hearing/NRSPR/Private School
Location: 20 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #18/20
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant Jonathan Willard. An abutter present was Burton Knight.
The Chairman stated that all outstanding fees on the application had been paid. Mr. Knight wished to discuss the fence on site between their properties and noted that he had signed an agreement with the applicant which stated it would be a 6’ stockade fence which he had since measured at 4.5’. The Chairman asked Jonathan Willard why the fence was not 6’ high. Jonathan Willard replied that he had tried to build the fence with parts of the existing fence on site and honestly had not recalled during its construction the height that was agreed upon with Mr. Knight during its construction. He noted that he felt the fence provided met the intent of that agreement. The Chairman asked Mr. Knight what the difference of 1’ made to him. Mr.
Knight replied that the additional height agreed upon would further reduce visual affects to his tenants next door such as traffic and noise and would be more appropriate to maintain privacy. The Chairman stated that the approved plan had no height requirement for the fence, only that it be there on the site. Don Duhaime noted that the applicant had signed an agreement with the owner which stated that the fence would be 6’ tall. The Chairman recalled that there were certain areas of the fence that were not level with the driveway to the site. Jonathan Willard replied that was
correct and the height fluctuations varied between 3” to 10”. Mr. Knight clarified that this was most evident near the front portion of the driveway and as the driveway inclined the fence height actually decreased not increased. The Chairman stated to Mr. Knight that at the site walk he could not see Mr. Knight’s property over the fence. Mr. Knight stated that maintaining the fence at 6’ would make a substantial difference regarding noise and privacy. Jonathan Willard thought it odd that Mr. Knight had recently complimented him on the very fence he was now complaining about. Mr. Knight replied that he had assumed that what was agreed upon had been accomplished. The Chairman clarified that Mr. Knight’s primary objection was that the fence was just short of 6’ in
height. Mr. Knight replied that it was 1.5’ short. The Chairman asked if a copy of the signed agreement between the applicant and Mr. Knight was available. The Coordinator produced a copy of the agreement from the applicant’s file for the Chairman. The Chairman read the agreement noting the mention of the fence height to be 6’ and stated that while the Board was not bound to act according to the agreement’s existence Mr. Knight could certainly take civil action if he preferred. James Nordstrom stated that the fence height was not mentioned on the approved plan, therefore, the Board had approved the fence with no mention of height. Don Duhaime reiterated that there was an agreement signed with the abutter that the full height would cut down on traffic and noise. Jonathan Willard stated that he did not think the extra foot would reduce noise significantly. The Chairman reminded the applicant that he had,
nevertheless, signed the agreement. Jonathan Willard admitted that it was his fault for not recalling the height mentioned in the agreement but noted that the matter also involved where the fence was measured from as there were posts along the fence that were 8” higher than the fence itself. He offered that he could add a topper to the fence to make up the difference in height. Mr. Knight stated that 6’ strips could be overlaid on the fence to resolve the issue.
The Chairman looked at the issue two ways. He stated that the fence at its current height or at 6’ would shield a conventional car from abutters’ views, however, an SUV would be visible regardless of either height. Dave Woodbury asked if a review of prior meeting minutes would help the Board decide if their approval considered the 6’ height agreed upon by the applicant and the abutter. Jonathan Willard noted that the application had been withdrawn and resubmitted at one point in time. Dave Woodbury asked if the Board would have denied the application if the fence was noted on the plan at 5’ in height. The Chairman replied that they would not have. Dave Woodbury thought that a resolution to this issue would be to determine if the
Board’s approval of the plan had included the reliance that the fence be 6’ in height. Mr. Knight thought that the Board also had a responsibility in terms of abutters’ rights and that this issue was important to him and to his tenants who abutted the site. The Chairman noted that the Board was in the process of discussing whether the applicant’s fence protected abutters’ rights. James Nordstrom asked Mr. Knight what he believed was the purpose of the fence. Mr. Knight replied that he believed that the fence served to reduce noise levels, a sense of business, traffic noise and the visual impact of cars on site. He added that he did not view the fence as a property separator but more for quality of living for tenants in the side yard abutting the site. The Chairman stated that he agreed with Mr. Knight’s comments and based on that a 1’ variance in the fence height should not make a difference. James
Nordstrom pointed out that the agreement signed by both parties listed its intent to provide a child safe area for both property owners and to act as a traffic noise barrier. He thought that the height of the fence in relation to it being a traffic/noise barrier was open to interpretation and opinion. He noted that in his opinion the intent of the purpose of the fence had been satisfied. The Chairman stated that sitting in the abutters’ yard traffic to the preschool should not be visible over the fence which it was not. He noted that the height of the fence now and as proposed would make no difference in that regard nor would sound transfer be improved upon. He thought that if the Board approved the applicant’s compliance this evening he should, as a good neighbor, see to it that the fence was adjusted to the agreed upon 6’ height.
The Chairman then read some previous meeting minutes summarizing the discussion to mean that the details of the fence were up to the applicants. The Chairman noted that another comment was recorded in the minutes about the applicant signing the fence agreement with Mr. Knight but details of it were not discussed at that meeting, therefore, he did not interpret it as relevant to the Board. Mr. Knight stated that he was relying on the integrity of the Board in this matter as they had been aware that an agreement was signed. The Chairman noted that the Board represented the Town and Zoning Regulations, making sure that applications met Zoning. He further noted that the fence constructed met Zoning requirements and that fact that it was not constructed to the agreement
specifics was a separate entity from Zoning. Mr. Knight felt that the Board’s responsibility extended beyond this to abutters. The Chairman replied that it was not the Board’s responsibility to make sure abutters were satisfied with a proposal. Mr. Knight noted that his agreement with the applicant was acknowledged by the Board. The Chairman did not feel that the minutes of the application reflected that comment. Mr. Knight questioned why an agreement was even drawn up as he had no authority beyond the Board’s support. The Chairman disagreed and stated that the agreement itself was his authority to take action with the applicant if he chose but it was not part of the Site Plan nor was it a requirement for its approval. Mr. Knight stated that he assumed it was part of the approval. The Chairman explained that it might have been the case if the type of fence were indicated on the plan but not to the degree that Mr.
Knight was suggesting. Mr. Knight thought that the Board had a responsibility to him to support that what was agreed upon between him and the applicant was not done. James Nordstrom asked how many linear feet of fence were involved. Jonathan Willard replied that it was approximately 100’.
Don Duhaime believed that Mr. Knight’s argument was somewhat justified as the Board knew the agreement to be for a 6’ fence. The Chairman noted that adjusting the fence to 6’ would probably cost $300.00. Jonathan Willard disagreed and stated that many upright sections of the existing fence had been cut and rebuilt and adjusting the fence again would require pulling up the posts and pouring more concrete. The Chairman thought that a new fence of the correct height could be laid over the existing one. Jonathan Willard stated that he would install a topper and hang a sheet on the existing fence before he considered such excessive work. The Chairman stated that the Board needed to determine if the 6’ height was relative to the plan’s
approval or not. James Nordstrom felt that the intent had been met. The Chairman also felt that Zoning requirements had been satisfied. Mr. Knight felt that the Board had approved the plan inclusive of the content of his agreement with the applicant which was specific. Dave Woodbury noted that a vote tonight would have to be based on the Board members who were present at the meeting when the application was approved and whether those members voted in reliance of the fence being 6’.
Bob Furey stated that he recalled the significance of the agreement and that Mr. Knight had been adamant regarding the specifics of the fence. He added that he wished a note had been added to the plan but based on his recollection he would consider the agreement part of his approval of the plan. Don Duhaime agreed. James Nordstrom did not agree. The Chairman stated that based on the polling of Board members the applicant was not in compliance and would need to install a 6’ fence on the site. He offered that 6’ stockade fencing was sold by the roll and could be easily overlaid on the existing fence. Dave Woodbury stated that he was not inclined to say that the fence must be entirely stockade. Jonathan Willard stated that he had used the
existing fencing on site to save money and as a guide when measuring the fencing additions. The Chairman noted that the 6’ fence would need to be up before the applicant could obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, however, the Board could make this installation a condition of compliance this evening.
Don Duhaime asked if the School Board had required any certificate of insurance to use the New Boston Central School driveway as access to the preschool. Jonathan Willard replied they had not. The Coordinator clarified that the lawyers for the School Board had drawn up the agreement for access. The Chairman wished to note that laminating a new fence to the existing fence would be acceptable.
Bob Furey MOVED to confirm compliance for the Non-Residential Site Plan for Jonathan and Jessica Willard to operate a private school to be known as Little People’s Depot, 20 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #18/20, and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department, subject to:
CONDITION (S) PRECEDENT:
1. Installation of a 6ft stockade fence to replace or supplement existing fence with drive by compliance by 2 Planning Board members.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion. James Nordstrom opposed the motion based on the inclusion of the Condition Precedent. The motion PASSED.
At 10:25 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
2. Discussion, Re: Craig Heafield, Tax Map/Lot #6/22, 688 River Road.
Craig Heafield was present for this discussion. He stated that he owned and operated 2 small gravel pits on River Road and was at the time frame where he now needed to update his permits. Craig Heafield noted that one of the gravel pits was small in scale and he would like to incorporate it into a future site plan rather than renew its permit. He added that his site was split zoned “R-A” and Commercial and he wished to propose a log concentration yard on site per the Zoning definition. This yard would be operated by an independent third party. Craig Heafield further added that the frontage of the site was zoned Commercial while the remainder was “R-A” and because of this layout he wondered how he should proceed. He stated that he
was the closest abutter and the next closest resided up River Road on Wilson Hill Road. Craig Heafield added that the pit was not visible from River Road and was fully buffered. Dave Woodbury asked if a log concentration yard was permitted in an “R-A” district. Chris Heafield replied that it was listed in the Forestry and Conservation District. Dave Woodbury clarified that this was not allowed in the “R-A” Zone. The Coordinator clarified that a log concentration yard was considered an intensive use but pointed out that Mr. Heafield could apply to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance to do this in the “R-A” District. James Nordstrom asked if intent for retail services was involved. Chris Heafield replied that it was not and he did not plan for any building or utilities on the site. Bob Furey asked if the location being considered for the log concentration yard was on the Commercial side of
the property. Chris Heafield replied that the Commercial portion totaled 2 acres along River Road frontage and the remainder of the pit totaling 3 acres was not. The Chairman asked if the stump grinding could be done on the Commercial portion and stock piling on the “R-A” side. Chris Heafield replied that this could be done but he thought it more sensible to do the grinding away from the road. James Nordstrom stated that another consideration was NHDOT where if the usage on the site were to be changed the State Driveway Permit would need to be amended.
Dave Woodbury stated that the State and the Town wanted to see discontinued gravel pits properly remediated and he was unsure if Mr. Heafield’s proposal would accomplish this. Chris Heafield replied that the amount of work that would be necessary to reclaim the site would be the same as work involved in a site plan. James Nordstrom asked how much remaining material was at the pit in question. Chris Heafield replied that approximately 40,000 yards remained which was a small amount. James Nordstrom stated that if material was to be removed incidental to a site plan that was one thing (5,000, 10,000 or maybe even 15,000 yards) but if the purpose was to remove material then the gravel permit should be reviewed and the site plan applied for separately afterwards. Chris Heafield replied that with his proposal he was trying to eliminate a step. The Chairman noted that given the scenario reclamation of the entire site may be necessary. Chris Heafield replied that he had been
reclaiming the site over time but would need enough flat land to make the site usable. James Nordstrom asked if there was any allowance in the Commercial or “R-A” zone for the kind of logging operation Mr. Heafield was considering. He recalled that the Board had entertained and granted proposals for other types of wood processing businesses in residential zones such as cordwood. Don Duhaime asked if the removal of gravel would not constitute Commercial activity on a Residential site. Dave Woodbury replied that graveling was regulated outside the Zoning Ordinance. James Nordstrom stated that when a use did not fit a zone then a variance by the ZBA was the next step. He was unsure if the ZBA could be approached informally on a subject as the Planning Board could be. Dave Woodbury asked what operating a log concentration yard entailed. Chris Heafield replied that the definition in the Zoning Ordinance listed everything that
would take place although it did not list stump grinding but did include chipping of logged material. Bob Furey asked if the Future Land Use Map recommended by the Master Plan Committee earlier in the evening showed Commercial Zoning in the area of discussion. The Coordinator replied that it did potentially along with a possibility for a satellite village. Dave Woodbury stated that if Mr. Heafield could not find proper permits for a log concentration yard in either zone on his site then the next option would be to approach the ZBA.
14. Discussion, Re: RFP submittals. (No Copies)
The Coordinator stated that the deadline for RFP submittals was August 11, 2006, and she had not wanted to copy all the submittals to the Board as they were mostly made up of resumes. She asked if the Board would like to view copies of the top 3 candidates with partial RFP copies made or how the matter should be approached. Bob Furey asked if an interview process would be conducted for candidates. James Nordstrom asked if recommendations would then be forwarded to the Selectmen. The Coordinator replied that when Dufresne-Henry, Inc., was hired their contract was forwarded to and signed by the Selectmen based on the Planning Board’s recommendation. The Chairman was unsure how the criteria for selection would be established. The Coordinator noted that
she would view the RFP’s in terms of the company’s procedures and how they interacted with towns. Dave Woodbury agreed with the Chairman and added that he thought the Coordinator would be more adept at making selections. The Chairman noted that a key point was that the Planning Department and Town Engineer interact well to obtain information for the Planning Board who was the third party. Dave Woodbury asked the Coordinator if she would be willing to select what she thought to be the top 3 candidates and submit these to the Board. The Coordinator noted that one area of difficulty she would have was knowing what the best universities and affiliations were in relation to the resumes and information contained in the RFP’s. Bob Furey stated that he could offer help in that area. He added that the interview process would also be important to gain the assurance that firms responded quickly to the Town’s needs along with how many
people were on staff. James Nordstrom agreed that the ability of a firm to respond to the Town in a timely manner was very important. The Coordinator stated that she would read through the RFP’s, consult with James Nordstrom and Bob Furey, and present her findings to the Board.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the Condex Site Plans noted earlier in item #’s 4 and 13.
At 11:07 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien, Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
| 
