TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of 2007 Meetings
January 23, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, Bob Furey, Don Duhaime; ex-officio David Woodbury and alternate Douglas Hill. 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 Greg and Chris Comeau, Ray Shea, John Bunting, Al Bell, Cyndie Wilson, Brandy Mitroff, two representatives from the New Boston Tracking Station, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Bob Todd, LLS, James Dodge, Ken Lombard, Burr Tupper, Carol LaChance, Jim Edwards, Jeff Hudson, Robert and Connie Brown, Dave Walker, PE, Paul Sizemore, Shayna Bernard, Jeffrey Montiel, Joseph Coffey.
COMEAU, GREGORY J. Adjourned from 12/12/06
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/3 Lots
Location: Davis Lane & NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road
Tax Map/Lot #2/63
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering, the applicant Greg Comeau, and his brother Chris Comeau. An interested party present was John Bunting. No abutters were present.
Ray Shea stated that the applicant proposed to subdivide the site into 3 lots with the existing house remaining on the middle located lot, one lot at the corner of the intersection at NH Route 77 and Davis Lane and the third lot at the eastern edge of the property running front to back. He noted that the last meeting with the Board was the first where a final application had been submitted for this plan and that a site walk was held on January 6, 2007. Bob Furey asked what sight distance the new proposed driveways had. Ray Shea replied that it was very good and from the corner lot sight distance was adequate toward the intersection to at least 200’ while the other lot needed its driveway moved up due to an existing stonewall. He noted that there were some narrow stretches of trees in this
area also but that adequate sight distance could be achieved. Ray Shea added that the traffic flow along Davis Lane was slow compared to other Class V Town maintained roads. He further added that there were three existing house lots beyond the site and then the road reached it dead end at the applicant’s driveway.
The Chairman asked what type of fire fighting water supply was being considered for the plan. Ray Shea replied that the homes on the two new proposed lots would have fire sprinkler systems installed. He noted the site was not suitable for further subdivision. The Chairman asked if the applicant would be willing to state on the planning that he would not further subdivide. Greg Comeau first wished to address the necessity for a fire sprinkler proposal as there was a fire pond close by. The Chairman replied that ponds were not recognized by the Town as a suitable means of fire fighting water supply as they tended to damage the pump truck hoses with sediment when accessed, therefore, fire sprinkler systems or cisterns were the only options. Regarding the “no further
subdivision” clause Greg Comeau questioned why he would want to limit his options by adding such a clause to the plan. The Chairman replied that if the Board was dealing with a known density they could better establish if the road could handle the
traffic generated by the subdivision versus an unknown future density which could compromise the road and safety design. Greg Comeau replied that the site could not handle further subdivision anyway. The Chairman noted that he raised the question because future regulations could change which might enable more subdivision. Greg Comeau asked if a lot line adjustment would be permissible should the need arise in the future. The Chairman replied that it could be as long as a new lot would not be created as a result. He then asked if there was any other access onto Davis Lane besides from NH Route 77. Ray Shea replied that there was access over from Lull Road. The Chairman stated that the applicant could take time to consider the “no further subdivision” clause.
Don Duhaime asked what the width of the Town’s right-of-way was on Davis Lane. Ray Shea replied that it varied from 50’ and narrowed to between 35’ and 40’. Don Duhaime asked if the applicant would consider having the Town assume a uniform 50’ right-of-way width as was done with Beard Road for another applicant since Davis Lane was narrow. Dave Woodbury asked where Davis Lane traveled to. Ray Shea replied that it was a dead end but did have a cross road connecting to Lull Road. The Chairman asked if this connector road was passable. Ray Shea replied that it was. Interested party John Bunting stated that the Board should think about potential future subdivisions that might occur on properties located beyond the Comeau farm in support of considering a
right-of-way width adjustment. Ray Shea thought that an easement 25’ from the centerline of the road or a road widening easement could be considered to allow for future road widening. Dave Woodbury noted that a potential sticking point could be that the neighbors along Davis Lane might have no interest or incentive to allow that. Ray Shea stated that this was why he preferred a road widening easement which could be modeled by road widening easement language he had used for other plans. Don Duhaime stated that he had never heard of a road widening easement. Greg Comeau asked what it would benefit. The Chairman explained that it would allow for future road improvements if future subdivision ever occurred beyond the site. Dave Woodbury wondered if it would be better not to gain the 50’ width so that it was understood by future applicants that they could not subdivide beyond the site. John Bunting pointed out that the decision
could come down to the whim of a future Board or ZBA while now this Board had the opportunity to do something concrete where this issue was concerned. Dave Woodbury noted that future Boards or ZBA’s could do as they pleased and might choose to disregard a 50’ right-of-way if warranted, thereby undoing the goals of earlier boards. The Chairman clarified that Dave Woodbury proposed to keep Davis Lane’s right-of-way constricted in order to prevent future development. Dave Woodbury noted that there were many two rod roads in town and Davis Lane presented itself no differently. Don Duhaime thought that if there was a plan for the future then the Board should be considering a 50’ right-of-way. The Chairman noted that Zoning stipulated that subdivision could occur on Class V roads, not only Class V with 50’ rights-of-way which was why this road’s capabilities should be brought up to such standards while the opportunity
presented itself. He added that he did not think that keeping the road at its current 35’ width would stall any potential of future subdivision beyond the site and that now was the time to do something constructive in the planning process regarding the issue. The Chairman stated that if road impacts to Davis Lane as a result of the approval of this application were expected then the Board could require improvements by this applicant, however, he did not think anything beyond an upgraded right-of-way width was warranted. Don Duhaime agreed. John Bunting also agreed and noted the potential of land beyond the site that had no other outlets which he pointed out on the tax maps to the Board. The Chairman asked how many lots existed between the site and the end of the road. Ray Shea replied that there was one backlot and one front lot. The Chairman asked who owned the front lot. Ray Shea replied that he was unsure. Don Duhaime
commented that there were a number of houses on the opposite side of Davis Lane also. Ray Shea replied that there was one lot on the corner of the opposite side and one more lot after that. The Chairman clarified that if the road needed improvement in the future it would be a future applicant’s problem to get the other two lot owners on board if they wished to develop the large parcel behind the site. He noted that with a 50’ right-of-way width in place this was good planning and the traffic study requirement could be negated. The Board agreed. Ray Shea stated that the applicant would be willing to give 25’ from the centerline of the road which would vary the width from 30’ to 40’ at the point beyond the Cross Road area thus picking up at least an additional 5’ or more for most of the road’s stretch and coming close to a 45’ right-of-way in most places. The Chairman asked if there would be a
maintenance easement beyond that. Ray Shea replied that there could be a widening easement proposed 25’ from the centerline of the roadway. Bob Furey noted that this did not accomplish what the Board had requested. Ray Shea replied that so as not to put a road onto existing property it was his practice to offer 25’ from the centerline. John Bunting asked why someone not causing an impact (neighbors along the road) have to suffer an impact. Ray Shea stated that the applicant was not causing an impact. The Chairman noted that potential subdivisions would. Ray Shea stated that in his experience an applicant never had to offer the entire 50’ of right-of-way. Dave Woodbury clarified that if this applicant’s subdivision were guaranteed to be the only one off the road then there would be no impacts to Davis Lane, however, future subdivisions on the land beyond the site could cause such impacts and while the 50’
right-of-way was not necessary for the applicant’s subdivision it would be needed if the abutting lands were developed. The Chairman noted that the Comeaus would not be required to pay for any road improvements as that burden would be borne by the beneficiary of any future subdivision. Douglas Hill stated that if the road did not gain the proper widening width and a subdivision was applied for in the future, neighbors along Davis Lane may not want to give up any width and there could be a large subdivision on a Class V road which the Board might deny anyway, but nonetheless there could be issues. Don Duhaime stated that in the case of another applicant 10’ to 15’ was given to the Town on either side of Beard Road. Douglas Hill asked if the applicant would be willing to go 30’ from the centerline. Ray Shea replied that he thought that was an unreasonable request. The Chairman noted that the applicant from Don
Duhaime’s example thought that future subdividers should be earmarked to pitch in their fair share when their time came but in the end he had to offer those easements to get his subdivision approved. Greg Comeau asked if he could gain a tax credit by offering the widening easement. The Chairman offered that if the land in question was deeded to the Town this might be possible. Greg Comeau asked how much the Town would pay for the land. The Chairman reiterated that
if the 50’ right-of-way were established there would be no need for the applicant to fund a Traffic Impact Study and that responsibility would then fall to future applicants who might want to subdivide surrounding properties that would be accessed by Davis Lane. He clarified that the Board was willing to concede that the applicant’s subdivision proposal would not impact Davis Lane which would, therefore, not require road improvements at this time, however, in the future this road would most likely need to be widened and the Board wanted the ability to be able to address that by having the right-of-way in place. The Chairman stated that he was unsure of the functional difference between 45’ and 50’ of right-of-way which was the sticking point between the applicant and the Board. Douglas Hill
offered that it was dependent on the terrain, i.e., good ditch lines, 3:1 slopes, etc. The Chairman stated that the Board would most likely require the full 50’ which was the only remaining issue with the plan. Ray Shea stated that this could be considered and that the only remaining items to be discussed were the remaining impact studies. Bob Furey noted that since no new structures were proposed near wetlands individual Stormwater Management plans would not be necessary. Ray Shea replied that this was the case. Bob Furey clarified that if a building envelope happened to end up close to a wetland that the Board would require such a plan. The Chairman stated that if the 50’ right-of-way was amenable to the applicant then the note on the plan for no further subdivision would not be necessary because if Zoning were to change in the future the road would have the capability of being improved to handle future impacts. He added that
he did not see how expansion would not occur in the future. Dave Woodbury noted that in looking at the Tax Map it appeared on either side of the road until the last lot, therefore, this looked like the last subdividable piece of property on the road and the two additional proposed lots would not cause road impacts, however Tax Map/Lot #2/65 and the land beyond it had future potential. He added that it would be his preference to place the burden of road improvements on the land owner whose subdivision would cause impacts and that would be the owner of Lot #2/65 if he chose to subdivide in the future. Dave Woodbury noted that it seemed unfair to burden the Comeaus at all in the foresight of what could happen in the future. Douglas Hill stated that he would agree with Dave Woodbury’s comments if it could be guaranteed that the Board would not allow further subdivision in the future on a 35’ Class V road to the applicant who chose to submit a plan for Lot
#2/65 or lands beyond it. The Chairman stated that such a scenario could not be guaranteed similar to saying that there would not be further subdivision allowed off Bedford Road because it had too many “S” curves. The Coordinator noted that a subdivision proposed off Beard Road was denied because the existing road had geometric constraints that rendered the design unsafe. The Chairman noted that that plan’s second entrance off Beard Road was not permitted because of existing unsafe curves along Beard Road. He added that the Board had finally approved a substandard design with no second entrance. Getting back to the current application the Chairman stated that there was no question in his mind that at some point in the future Lot #2/65 would be developed. Ray Shea stated that the applicant wanted his plan to be approved and it was up to the Board whether or not they would approve the subdivision with the conditions that had been
discussed this evening. He added that he felt the Board’s view points were sensible, however, he was not used to seeing
The Chairman noted such a large burden placed on an applicant and was more used to giving 25’ from the centerline. The Chairman noted that the major burden would be the expense to improve the Davis Lane and now was a good opportunity to plan for future improvement. Regarding the tax burden question by the applicant the Chairman stated that he did not believe there would be any substantial tax savings as a result of giving the 50’ right-of-way. Douglas Hill agreed. Dave Woodbury stated that he was under the impression that the applicant’s question regarded an income tax break versus a property tax savings. Ray Shea stated that a road widening easement would have fewer ramifications on the property than deeding land to the Town. The Chairman stated that if an easement was given to allow
for a 50’ right-of-way then there would be no other issues with the plan. Don Duhaime added that if the Board agreed to an easement of 10’ then a future developer would need to attempt to gain 5’ on either side of the road. The Chairman further added that a future applicant would then have to deal with two additional property owners agreeing to that. Ray Shea stated that his client was amenable to the 50’ right-of-way or whatever additional easements were needed to accomplish that. He requested that the plan’s approval be considered at this hearing and that they be allowed to submit revised plans. The Chairman stated that the waivers for the three studies could be considered with the Traffic and Fiscal Studies having been discussed previously and the Environmental being addressed to the point that if the building envelope approached any critical areas on the plan it was understood that individual Stormwater Management and
Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plans would be required of the applicant.
Bob Furey MOVED to grant the waivers requested for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Bob Furey MOVED to accept the application of Gregory J. Comeau, Major Subdivision, 3 Lots, Location: Davis Lane and NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/63, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the Board’s deadline for action was now March 29, 2007. He added that the plans included a note regarding the Stormwater Management and Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. The Chairman stated that Driveway permits had been submitted and fire fighting water supply had been discussed. Ray Shea added that monuments would be set on the site. Bob Furey asked if a note regarding fire sprinkler installations would be on the plan. Ray Shea replied that it would be. The Chairman noted that by using the standard language for this it would alleviate a review by Town Counsel. Ray Shea understood. Greg Comeau asked if the sprinkler requirement impacted the existed structure on the site. The
Chairman replied that this would apply only to new proposed structures.
Bob Furey MOVED to approve the Major Subdivision/3 Lots, Gregory Comeau, Tax Map/Lot #2/63, N.H. Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, and Davis Lane, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including
all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing, to include noting in
the plans the easement to achieve a 50’ right of way as noted at this hearing.
2. Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Submission of a certificate of bounds set (if necessary);
4. Submission of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application or recording of
documents at the HCRD.
5. Submission of standard notes and documents re: sprinkler systems.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be April 23, 2007,
confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the
Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for
extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the
Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved subdivision, in accordance with Chapter NB-5.0 of the Town of New Boston Building Code before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved subdivision. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the driveway permit should be considered. The Coordinator noted that on the site walk Ray Shea had noted that moving the stones from the proposed driveway entrance to the existing barway would be a good idea so there would only be one driveway on the lot. Ray Shea agreed.
Don Duhaime MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #’s 06-038 and 06-039 for proposed driveways, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. Additionally, permit # 06-039 shall require that the rocks removed from the stonewall for installation of this driveway be placed in the existing barway to the west of the proposed driveway so only one opening will be located in the stonewall. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
SHAKY POND DEVELOPMENT, LLC
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/27 Lots
Location: Susan Road
Tax Map/Lot #15/15
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering and Al Bell of Shaky Pond Development, LLC. Interested parties were Cyndie Wilson, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, two representatives from the New Boston Tracking Station, John Bunting and Brandy Mitroff.
Ray Shea stated that the site totaled 108 acres and was located north of Susan Road and an extension was proposed to Susan Road traveling southerly into the property where it abutted the Tracking Station and onto the proposed “Harvey Road” extension into “Shaky Pond Road” to create a loop. He added that 26 lots were proposed plus one proposed 10 acre lot in the southeast corner of the site which would not have a structure built on it. Ray Shea stated that a site walk had been held and he would be pleased to discuss any questions resulting from that walk in addition to further review of the plans. The Chairman stated that the Road Agent had submitted a letter which expressed concern over the proposed short cul-de-sac. The Coordinator told Ray
Shea that this letter had just been received by the Planning Department today. The Planning Assistant then made a photocopy of the letter for Ray Shea. The Chairman asked if the applicant would be willing to remove one backlot to eliminate the short cul-de-sac. Ray Shea recalled that this comment had been made at the last meeting and noted that the reason the cul-de-sac was there was because of the difficult looping of the proposed road due to the terrain on site. He noted on the topography plan that the loop road was created in consideration of the property sloping high on the western side and down toward the east and that without the cul-de-sac in its proposed location a larger loop would need to be created since the cul-de-sac allowed for a “T” intersection design which would not be permitted otherwise.
The Chairman asked Ray Shea if he had reviewed the letters submitted by other correspondents regarding the plan. Ray Shea replied that he had and wished to discuss the four wetland crossings proposed. He stated that one crossing was runoff or a stream that came from the direction of Susan Road and traveled east, another came from the west cutting across the property and almost meeting the first crossing. Ray Shea explained that each crossing had two impacts on each proposed road and they proposed 40” culverts which they would be discussing with NHDES who had definite preferences for culverts based on certain types of wetlands. He added that they would also discuss with NHDES the species habitats located on the site, noting as an example that an abutter had
informed them that a black gum tree was located in one area of the property. Ray Shea stressed that the applicant intended to be proactive in addressing environmental topics as they related to the plan with the State and the Conservation Commission.
Dave Woodbury recalled that at the last meeting they had discussed land owners considering development to the east. He asked Cyndie Wilson, a Conservation Commission member who lived to the west if she knew whether or not the McCabes, also owners to the west, were considering development of their land. Cyndie Wilson replied that she had never met the
McCabes but knew that they owned 22 acres and their property appeared to be landlocked considering the surrounding road system. She added that she was unsure of any plans they had for future subdivision. Ray Shea thought that this property was accessed by a private way. Dave Woodbury thought that it might be accessed by Mason Drive. Cyndie Wilson clarified that Mason Drive did not access the McCabe property. Ray Shea asked if there was a structure on the McCabe property. Cyndie Wilson replied there was not. She explained that the area of discussion included her land, McCabe’s and the Shaky Pond Land Company (including Shaky Pond) with Mason Drive being the only access. Cyndie Wilson stated that because her property was originally landlocked she had asked the Lorden family if she might
have a right-of-way up an existing logging road in order to build her house but the Lordens had denied her request, therefore, she had purchased more property to have an access point. She went on to detail the area explaining that if you traveled further to the west toward Laurel Lane you would come to Peter Beers’ property with property (under conservation easement) in between. Dave Woodbury stated that the point he sought to make was that there were a fair number of acres to the west of the site that were probably developable. He added that given the comments he had received suggesting a possible connection in the future through Laurel Lane it was now the right time to consider how the McCabes and the Shaky Pond Land Company would be accommodated as the applicant’s site was a key factor to their development options. Ray Shea asked if Laurel Lane was a Town road. Dave Woodbury replied that it was. Burr Tupper, Conservation
Commission, wished to clarify that “Harvey Lane” was not yet in existence. Ray Shea replied that that was correct. Burr Tupper offered that without a connection to Harvey Lane, Shaky Pond Road would be nothing but a cul-de-sac which could cause issues with the Police and Fire Departments. The Chairman replied that this was why a simultaneous connection was needed between these roads.
Burr Tupper returned to the subject of the lower two proposed wetland crossings on the plan noting their close proximity to one another. He felt that NHDES would need to weigh in on these crossings. Burr Tupper stated that he was also concerned about the proposed cul-de-sac area which proposed 14’ to 16’ of fill which would be a potential wildlife barrier. He noted that there were a significant number of moose in that area along with Blandings Turtles and Hognose Snakes which were on the threatened species list provided by the State. Dave Woodbury asked the Coordinator if she had an opinion on how the site would present itself if it were proposed as a Cluster design. The Coordinator asked Ray Shea if he had looked at this option. Ray Shea
replied that this was discussed with the applicant, however, they felt that because the other landowners surrounding this site were proposing conventional designs this would not be a good marketing decision. The Coordinator stated that with a Cluster design the number of proposed lots could go to one acre each keeping the density the same and the proposed road considerably shorter in length. Dave Woodbury added that this could preserve half of the acreage of the site. The Coordinator noted that it would be dependent on the slopes and wetlands. Dave Woodbury stated that he understood the applicant’s marketing concepts but offered that maybe this was the time to reconsider. Ray Shea noted that the wetlands on the northern part of the site had many
fingers and because of that it could be difficult to group the lots in a cluster design and accommodate a loop road. Al Bell stated that in looking at the cluster design it was determined that it would only work at the back of the site and would require a loop road anyway. He supported Ray Shea’s statement that marketing had also been a factor, therefore, they had ruled out this design. Burr Tupper noted that studies had shown cluster developments to be desirable and that the payback with that type of development was faster and larger than with two acre lots. He too suggested that it might be time to break the mold of conventional layouts and that marketing a cluster design might be feasible. The Chairman stated that he would never buy a house built by Al Bell in a cluster subdivision on that site. Burr Tupper agreed but noted that the site was probably not a good piece of land to build on anyway.
Dave Woodbury thought that one conventional subdivision after another was getting monotonous and the number of developments coming forward gave no consideration to the Town’s infrastructure and options for commercial properties, therefore, it was the Board’s challenge to consider all of these developments and future developments in the big picture. Bob Furey agreed. John Bunting recalled a letter he had forwarded to the Board weeks prior on this subject and commended the Board for their long range views. He stated that he would appreciate some focus given to the issues of Bedford Road at Klondike Corner noting that the last traffic count done for Bedford Road north of Chestnut Hill Road on a peak day had been 3,300 cars which was second to Mont Vernon Road
heading south in the area of New Boston Hardware at 3,700 cars/peak day. He submitted a rough sketch to review the difficult “S” turn on Bedford Road which he explained was difficult for the Town to maintain because it was narrow and tree shaded. John Bunting added that another issue involved the fact that Bedford Road joined Chestnut Hill Road at an acute angle. He noted that although the Shaky Pond subdivision was not directly involved with these issues it was related to the long range plans for the re-engineering of Bedford Road at that location and a plan for a right-of-way into Lot #15/16 so that traffic could exit southerly from this area and not all to the north on McCurdy Road and then Bedford Road. John Bunting stated that in consideration of the 3,300 vehicles counted on a peak day plus those from an additional 80 to 100 houses from these subdivisions the Board should consider approving a right-of-way onto abutting Lot #15/16 or 17 for
better traffic flow. In that way he explained that when the subdivider of Lot #15/16 came before the Board it would be clearly understood that there would be a requirement for the re-engineering of Bedford Road to an extent that lots would still be afforded on either side. Ray Shea agreed and noted that one of the two subdivisions being discussed had such a right-of-way planned which would be further discussed as the applications progressed. He stated that the proposed road off this applicant’s subdivision ran north to south, high on the western side and low to the east which made for a difficult connection into Susan Road and by having the additional outlet he suggested it would be better than running the proposed road at a perpendicular angle because of the fill issue. Ray Shea stated that Lot #’s 15/16 and 17 were not part of this development as of now and because the slopes and wetlands were difficult on the site the road proposed provided a
better outlet as there was no connection to the east. Al Bell noted that once you arrived onto the land owned by the Bussieres it became very wet and he had no problem providing a future right-of-way but there was no access point to use right now. Ray Shea stated that the land owners involved had been working on these issues for a while and he felt the matters were being addressed and discussed considering the Klondike Corner area. Burr Tupper stated that he understood the desirability of the land given its location but wished to stress that it was also an environmentally sensitive area.
Interested party, Brandy Mitroff stated that when the subject of recreational areas for these developments had been brought up in the past everyone seemed to be in agreement that they were needed, however, the request seemed to be passed for one applicant to another. She asked at what point the Board would consider pinpointing land for this purpose noting that the issue had begun with Carriage Road and now with the advent of more surrounding subdivisions not one flat area was owned by the Town in this location. Brandy Mitroff stated that it was time to make a decision based on the three active subdivision applications that were now in this area and that at least one should be able to create a viable lot to be used for recreation. Al Bell stated that he had considered this
issue and had no problem seeking out a viable piece of land, however, when the site was walked it was difficult to see a suitable area for example, a ball field and parking. Brandy Mitroff stated that these developers met years ago to discuss road network options as they were in agreement that it needed to happen. She added that she would think the same would be true for a recreational area and was now looking to the Board for its guidance on the matter. Dave Woodbury stated that the responsibility for this rested with the Town and although nothing concrete had been done about this issue Brandy Mitroff’s point was well taken. He noted that Al Bell was correct when he stated that the site was a tough walk with a lot of up and down traversing rocks and streams, land that was more suitable to wildlife than a flat field. Brandy Mitroff stated that she was merely pointing out that the Town was running out of options in this area with the issue always
being skirted to the next proposal. She cautioned that the Bussiere piece may never be developed and there may never be an outlet to Bedford Road or a piece of land appropriate for recreational use in that area. Burr Tupper noted that the Lorden property would yield another 30-35 lots. Cyndie Wilson commented that this property was another hill. Burr Tupper agreed that it too would probably not have a piece suitable for recreational use. John Bunting suggested that the Board might consider hiring an independent engineer to look at the area of discussion and confirm whether or not there was a suitable 4 acre piece of land possibly from two of the subdivisions that could be set aside for recreational use and the cost of that independent engineer would be borne by the developers as an offsite improvement. Dave Woodbury agreed but wondered if land set aside may be used for more important uses such as a school. Don Duhaime asked if the Town
would be prepared to build a baseball field if they got this land. Brandy Mitroff asked if that would matter.
Don Duhaime stated that he did not foresee a looped road out to Bedford Road ever happening. Cyndie Wilson noted that other types of recreation were possible such as walking trails which she recalled was a point made by Brian Dorwart, Road Committee, at the last meeting, who had stated that it gave subdivisions a “neighborhood” feeling. She noted that connecting the Shaky Pond land to the Bussiere land by one road looping through both parcels may make more sense considering the rugged territory and sensitive environment. Ray Shea stated that a donated piece of land was not in the plan stage right now. He asked Cyndie Wilson if her comments alluded to having a single road for the plan. Cyndie Wilson noted that when the parcels owned by Mitch
Larochelle and Al Bell were combined and went through four different owners with large subdivision plans the Board denied 90 proposed house lots along with others because they called the plans scattered and premature for the area. She added that if a goal of the Town was to reach Bedford Road through road connections and Mr. Bussiere was not ready to make any plans for his land then maybe the same reasoning could be said for this scenario.
The Chairman asked the representatives present from the New Boston Tracking Station if they had any comments. A representative replied that they were here to answer any questions that pertained to the Tracking Station as it related to this application. The Chairman asked if the Tracking Station was remaining in its present location. The representative replied that it had no plans to relocate.
The Chairman stated that he would like to see the density of the plan modified as it seemed dense for the area. John Bunting asked if there was anything in the Subdivision Regulations that would prohibit long driveways to the two proposed backlots on the plan as that would mean that the Town would not need to maintain that portion of the road? The Chairman replied that he was not aware of any issue with those driveways except that if the backlots were not there a stacking problem could arise. Ray Shea added that this would also result in a “T” intersection with no cul-de-sac and he did not think that the Board would allow 90o stopping. The Chairman noted that proposing that radius seemed to compromise the Ordinance as emergency vehicles would
need two means to access the lots. He added that the radius seemed incorrect on the “T”. Ray Shea replied that the radius was not incorrect on the “T” intersection and that if it were cut off you could not get to the lots. The Chairman asked why a sweep could not be considered in place of the “T”. Ray Shea replied that a lot of modification would be needed on the plan to do that but he would look into it. Burr Tupper commented that he thought there was ledge in that area also. Don Duhaime asked if Ray Shea could look at the Steep Slopes in two areas and at the first wetland crossing and cul-de-sac for discussion at the next meeting. Ray Shea noted that 12’ of fill would be required at the first wetland crossing. Don Duhaime asked if there were any Steep Slope issues construction wise or building wise on site. Ray Shea replied that there were no issues for the house lots as none of the
driveways were proposed to be constructed off Steep Slope areas.
Dave MOVED to adjourn the application of Shaky Pond Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 27 Lots, Location: Susan Road, Tax Map/Lt #15/15, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to February 27, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
LACHANCE, CAROL S. & ALBERT J.
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/9 Lots
Location: NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Lull Road & Middle Branch Roads
Tax Map/Lot #2/112-2
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Bob Todd, LLS, and the applicant Carol LaChance. Interested parties were John Bunting, Jim Dodge and Brandy Mitroff.
The Chairman stated that most of the Board members had expressed their confusion regarding the many reiterations of this plan and requested a brief recap of where the plan stood now. Bob Todd, LLS, referenced sheet #2 of the plan noting that the project was bounded by NH Route 77 on the east, Middle Branch Road to the north and Lull Road to the south. He added that the Town Forest abutted the site and pointed out the locations of the LaChance’s existing house and the proposed subdivision. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the site totaled 44.8 acres and the proposed cluster would leave 25.3 acres of open space. He added that the drainage pattern on the site flowed in and out with the majority heading toward the middle branch of the Piscataquog River. Bob Todd,
LLS, stated that he was able to position 8 lots and have only one wetland crossing by positioning the lots in three separate communities of 2, 3 and 3. He noted that a benefit to this design was that 8 lots were being served with 3 curb cuts and the rest of the property was undisturbed by low impact development and anti-sprawl standards along with little wetland impact and impermeable surfaces. Bob Todd, LLS, added that the property had been extensively logged prior to the applicant’s ownership but would be high function woodlands in the future. He noted that the State had approved the driveway crossings and bond estimates had been submitted. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the proposed culverts were open bottom and that there was a major wetland flow off the Siemeze lot and through the corner of the site. He noted that there was a proposed easement across the LaChance’s home lot to maintain a border from the Town forest to Middle Branch Road. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the
applicant had State Subdivision Approval but this needed to be amended as the plan had been reconfigured by dropping one lot. Don Duhaime asked for clarification of where two lots were located. Bob Todd, LLS, reviewed the plan and noted the location of the lots as three separate cluster communities. Douglas Hill asked if there was one plan overview that illustrated all 3 clusters. Bob Todd, LLS, stated there was not due to the scale of the plans but offered to match up the plan sheets to create one view. The Chairman stated that wouldn’t be necessary as the Locus Map showed the general placement.
Bob Furey noted that the proposed driveways to the lots crossed the buffer which was not allowed by the Cluster Regulations. Don Duhaime added that the buffer was supposed to be a minimum of 100’ of width in a Cluster which was not evident in the middle of the site. The Chairman explained that the development did not necessarily have to be in the middle but the buffer needed to go around the property. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that in principal that was what a Cluster should be. He noted that when wetlands fragment developable areas the environmental aspects needed to be considered and the applicant was minimizing those impacts to hydrology as the wetlands were good corridors for wildlife that had been observed in the area. Bob Todd, LLS, added that by
minimizing land impacts the potential for sediment and runoff to the Middle Branch of the Piscataquog could be prevented, therefore, environmental standpoints were sound although there may be a trade-off on social aspects of the design. Bob Furey agreed but reiterated that the design still looked like open space and a buffer with two driveways through it. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that in viewing the language of the Cluster Regulations he did not see anything that would prohibit those driveways and if that was the case there was a clause that said the rules may be adjusted to fit the site. Douglas Hill noted that the spirit of open space development was to work with the land and development. Bob Furey stated that the Board needed to decide how to proceed and what was correct given the layout of the site. John Bunting asked what the Town’s right-of-way was on Middle Branch Road. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was 4 rods wide. John
Bunting noted that 20-25 years prior a resident had mentioned to him that he thought at some point Middle Branch Road should be thought of as a main thoroughfare between Francestown Road and NH Route 114 as that could lessen the burden of heavy traffic flows through the Town center. He thought this was a long term idea that the Board should consider.
Regarding Earl Sandford, LLS, PE’s, earlier statement about the Board’s flexibility options for Cluster design by the Regulations, the Coordinator stated that upon her review there were different sections that allowed for flexibility to consult other Town departments along with general purpose statements, however, she was unsure of any blanket statement that the Board could use to waive all aspects. Bob Furey asked if he had adequately summarized what the issue was in the Cluster design. The Coordinator clarified that Bob Furey was concerned about driveways crossing the 100’ buffer on all three cluster areas of the site. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, read from section 401.5.I. of the Cluster Regulations: “The Planning Board may permit minor deviations
from open space standards when it can be determined that: 1) the objectives underlying these standards can be met without strict adherence to them; and/or, 2) because of the peculiarities in the tract of land or the facilities proposed, it would be unreasonable to require strict adherence to these standards”. The Chairman asked that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, show on the plan where the driveways interfered with the buffer. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, showed where the driveways to the lots crossed through the buffer to access the homes on the proposed lots. The Coordinator noted that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, had read his quotation from the heading for “Common Open Space” which allowed for differences in configurations of the open space but was not a blanket for the Ordinance. The Chairman stated that driveways and not a road were proposed through the buffer and there was no other way to access those lots. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that if the
driveways in question were cut further west than proposed there would be wetland impacts to Lull Road. The Chairman added that even with that change the driveways would still travel through the buffer. He noted that he had no issue with this. Bob Furey agreed. He noted that in the Hutchinson Road area there was a similar situation but it differed in the fact that there were more alternatives for placement. Bob Furey reiterated that he was comfortable with the design but was looking for a procedural way to support it.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the consensus from the conceptual review was that the driveway to Lot #2/112-2-8 needed to come before the turnaround, therefore, this was adjusted by extending the turnaround area slightly to stay close to the crest of the hill at a 2% grade. He added that he met with the Road Agent who recommended extending the paved portion an additional 50’ to accommodate the snow plows and the applicant was agreeable. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that a slope and drainage easement was added to the plan for future road improvements and that there was a full 50’ to work in between an existing stonewall and Lot #2/112-2-8 on Lull Road. The Chairman asked how three driveways would split off a common driveway proposed on the plan.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the plan originally had two driveways off the common curb cut and the Board had recommended at a previous meeting to add Lot #2/112-2-8 to this curb cut rather than create another one which did not seem to be limited by the Cluster Regulations. He noted that the applicant adhered to the 100’ common curb cut portion, i.e., the split location. The Chairman stated that he did not recall this discussion.
Interested party Jim Dodge stated that he was bothered by tonight’s discussion and that it would be more reasonable to have the third driveway enter further along Lull Road. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, agreed and recalled that the applicant had proposed this at the last meeting. He noted that the Road Agent was amenable to using the same pathway to plow for the existing house on Lull Road. The Chairman stated that he was at a loss as he did not think that 3 driveways off a common curb cut was the agreement that had been reached. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that at the first meeting with the applicant the Board had commented that the Town did not need any more paved roads and this plan reflected that sentiment. The Chairman stated that there was little doubt that
Lull Road would service more traffic in the future than it did now. Jim Dodge stated that he felt the Board was going in circles where at an earlier hearing they discussed the importance of having open space subdivisions and in this applicant’s case there was already an existing road, however, they were opting to disturb the open space to construct a driveway. The Chairman stated that they wanted to limit driveways off Lull Road in this area as it was not a Class V road and the applicant did not want to upgrade it to a Class V. Jim Dodge countered that this was a cluster design to preserve open space and now the Board was condoning the construction of driveways through its buffer which showed an inconsistency in their rationale from hearing to hearing this evening.
The Chairman asked where the 200’ mark was from the corner of Lot #2/112-2-7 to the driveway of Lot #2/112-2-8. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted the 200’ mark on the plan. He noted that in the plan’s original design it was indicated that the 200’ mark should be moved down and the applicant then proposed the road be brought up to Town standards with gravel surfacing but it was then indicated that the only acceptable measure would be a paved surface but since it was not necessary to pave up to the front of Lot #2/112-2-8, would a shortened “T” work at the cul-de-sac which the Board had stated that it would as long as the driveway to Lot #2/112-2-8 was designed to enter off the end of the cul-de-sac and enter the lot. The Chairman asked how
the plan was bypassing the requirement for the 200’ frontage issue. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that cluster designs required a minimum 50’ of frontage. The Chairman clarified that the applicant was using 50’ of frontage on a Class V road, therefore, they were going 50’ past the corner and ran out of the ability to have a turnaround in the driveways within 75’ of each other but the driveways should be able to come in off their own property, i.e. frontage. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that they were going 50’ plus another 50’ beyond the “T” which the Road Agent had suggested to accommodate snow storage. The Chairman noted that there were other areas on that road that could accommodate snow storage. Brandy Mitroff asked where the snow storage went presently. Jim Dodge replied that he plowed Lull Road from where the Town stopped and there was a lot of room for snow storage on Lull Road and that the
plow went all the way to the end of the tar. Brandy Mitroff wondered why one new driveway created a different scenario for plowing. The Chairman asked whose property the snow was pushed onto currently. Jim Dodge replied that it was pushed onto a Class VI road. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE stated that the measure between existing stonewalls along Lull Road exceeded 50’, therefore, the scenario for plowing was somewhat enhanced. The Chairman then asked how far the Town plowed along the road now. Jim Dodge stated that he plowed approximately 600’ beyond the tar then turned around. The Chairman clarified that in the plan’s case just a turnaround point was needed for the plow. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, wished to state, in fairness, that he had not had this discussion with the Road Agent about pushing the snow an extra 50’ who told him to reference his letter which at this point he had not yet reviewed. The Coordinator
stated the Road Agent had not written a letter, he had verbally given his comments to her that day and the suggestions were in line with tonight’s discussion. The Chairman felt that the driveway to Lot #2/112-2-8 should enter off of Lull Road as adding a third driveway to a common drive was not consistent with what was done for Cluster designs. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that there should be room to do so as they had 50’ in front of the turnaround plus 50’ to the end of the pavement plus the 50’ they started with equaling 150’. The Chairman clarified that there was room for the driveway to Lot #2/112-2-8 to enter off Lull Road and this would satisfy the Subdivision Regulations. He likened the scenario to the Fillmore application which was before the Board in a prior year. Carol LaChance noted that at a previous meeting the driveway to Lot #2/112-2-8 was going to enter off Lull Road, however, it would have interfered
with the turnaround. She asked if this would again be the case. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that he would need to work out the logistics with the Road Agent and was confident that the issue could be resolved. The Chairman clarified that the driveway could not come off the turn round itself but before or after it and that a Driveway Permit required that a driveway needed to come off a Class V road. He thought that the snow plows should be able to make a gradual left hand swing and drop the snow in a ditch, back into the turn around and leave. Jim Dodge noted that this was how the plowing was handled now on Lull Road. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that the paving should go to station 4+00 or 4+25. He added that if the Road Agent said that they needed to go 75’ to make it work they would. The Chairman stated that this resolution eliminated the common driveway issue and had the driveway to Lot #2/112-2-8 exiting onto Lull Road. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that they
would pave up to station 3+50, up to 4+00 and possibly beyond then transition to the Class VI road by shimming with crushed stone. The Chairman clarified that the proposed turn around would not have the driveway to Lot #2/112-2-8 off it. Carol LaChance agreed that it would be before the turn around. The Chairman concurred.
The Coordinator asked that all legal documents be revised to include all the changes that had taken place regarding common driveways, covenants and the wetland protection zones and then resubmitted in order that Town Counsel could review them it would help to keep the application in progress. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that he also needed to prepare an easement for future improvements to Lull Road.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn the application of Carol S. and Albert J. LaChance, Major Subdivision, 9 Lots, Location: NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Lull Road and Middle Branch Roads, Tax Map/Lot #2/112-2, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to February 27, 2007, at 8:00 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 9:30 the Planning Board took a 15 minute break.
SHB PROPERTIES, LLC Adjourned from 12/12/06
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/7 Lots
Location: Pulpit, Bedford and Campbell Pond Roads
Tax Map/Lot #12/65
Residential-One “R-1” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Jim Edwards of Meridian Land Services and Jeff Hudson of SHB Properties, LLC. Abutters present were Robert and Connie Brown.
Jim Edwards stated that they had received Stantec’s sign off on all revisions that had incorporated the Board’s requests to date on the plan. He added that at the last meeting easements were discussed as they pertained to the Brown’s property and the discontinuance of Pulpit Road and since that meeting the Brown’s had had deeds prepared to that effect. Jim Edwards stated that all State approvals were in place for the plan. Connie Brown stated that the deeds had been given to Town Counsel who informed her that there was no rush for them as the discontinuance of Pulpit Road would not occur until 2008. Dave Woodbury explained that the discontinuance would not occur until the new proposed road was completed.
The Chairman asked if in regard to the Conditional Use Permit the cost of the wetland crossing for the driveways was included in the total bond. Jim Edwards replied that it was. The Chairman then asked if a decision had been reached regarding the wetland crossing previously proposed for Lot #12/65-8. Jim Edwards replied that this crossing was not going to be constructed. The Chairman asked if there was a note on the plan to reflect that decision. Jim Edwards replied that there was a note on the wetlands approval stating that this approval was given based on the approval of the alternate access. The Chairman asked if there
was any legal document prepared regarding the maintenance of the proposed detention basin. Jim Edwards replied that at the last meeting the owner of Lot#12/65-7 would maintain one “structure” and the owner of Lot #12/65-8 would maintain the other. He noted that easements were left in place just in case, although the Road Agent did not want to be responsible for the
maintenance even though it would be minimal. Bob Furey wished to clarify whether Lot #12/65-8 was being built or not or the wetland crossing was being built or not. Jim Edwards stated that this lot was originally shown with an access by a wetland crossing and they had obtained the approval to do so but if the plan was approved by the Board as shown an alternate access without constructing a wetland crossing would be made per an agreement with NHDES. He then read from Note #17 of the plan: “Vehicle access to Lot #8 shall be from the new driveway extended from the proposed cul-de-sac for Pulpit Road entirely within the lot boundaries”.
The Coordinator stated that the Planning Department had just received the Town Engineer’s construction monitoring estimate. She then gave a copy to Jim Edwards. The Chairman asked what form of security the bond amount of approximately $234K would be. Jeff Hudson replied that it would be a bank letter of credit.
Bob Furey asked if the slope and drainage easements included detention pond maintenance items. The Coordinator noted that she had not seen that language as of yet. She informed Jim Edwards that the Board would need a draft of the language that would be in the property owners’ deeds regarding the slope and drainage easements. Jim Edwards replied that he would have this prepared.
Bob Furey MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan, SHB Properties, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #12/65, Bedford, Pulpit and Campbell Pond Roads, for the subdivision of 7 new lots,
subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,
including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
4. Submission of legal documents regarding the conveyance of land from the Ciarla's and
the Town of New Boston to the Browns.
5. Submission of the language of the form of the security for review and approval by
Town Counsel, the cost of which review shall be borne by the applicant.
6. Submission of the security, in the amount of $234,590.95 and in the form of a letter of
credit, for the construction of Pulpit Road as shown on the approved plans and profiles.
7. Submission of the estimated construction inspection fees regarding the construction
of Pulpit Road in the amount of $30,210.00. A mandatory pre-construction meeting
is required to be held with the developer/agent, road contractor, Town's Road Agent,
and representatives of the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen, as well as the
Town's consulting engineer, prior to the start of the road construction project.
8. Receipt of approval of revised Warranty Deed for Pulpit Road, Slope and Drainage
Easements, Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and Detention Basin #2
Maintenance Easement by Town Counsel.
9. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
10. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the
recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
11. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be
signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be April 23, 2007,
the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further
action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a
written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on
notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the
approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Prior to the start of any construction on-site or the issuance of any building permits, the
applicant must submit an executed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions
regarding sprinkler systems; an executed Warranty Deed for Pulpit Road, and
executed Slope and Drainage Easements. The cost of recording any of the Deeds and
other legal documents at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
2. Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New
Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwellings
on those lots.
3. Pulpit Road is to be constructed in accordance with the Application for Inspection
and in accordance with the approved plans and profiles. After the base (binder)
course of pavement is approved by the Road Agent/town's engineer, the developer
will allow the road to set over one winter, during which time the developer will be
liable for the roads, including, but not limited to, winter maintenance thereof. The
wearing (finish) course of pavement shall be applied no later than one (1) year from
the date of application of the binder course. The Application for Inspection must be
turned into the Planning Department after the road is 100% complete, in order to
initiate final inspection and acceptance of the road, and the release of the security for
same after a compliance inspection and hearing is held.
4. Driveway locations shall be approved at sub-grade and driveways shall be installed
through binder to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town engineer and in
conformance with the Application for Inspection and approved driveway permits.
5. Per Subdivision Regulations Section V-S, 1, J), As-Built plans showing the final
location of any slope/drainage easement areas, and driveways, and the final road
construction details, in the form of three paper print copies and one electronic file,
certified by the applicant's engineer that the layout of the line and grade of all public
improvements is in accordance with the approved construction plans of the subdivision,
shall be submitted for review by the Town's consulting engineer, prior to the issuance of
any Certificates of Occupancy within the subdivision.
6. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording
same with the HCRD.
7. The applicant shall install road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) to the
satisfaction of the Road Agent.
8. Driveway permits must be approved for completed acceptable installation by the
Road Agent and Planning Board prior to the issuance of any Certificates of
Occupancy (CO's) for the related lots.
9. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until the sprinkler systems are
installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or
their designee and the driveways are installed and approved by the Road Agent and the
Planning Board and the road is installed through binder pavement and the road
identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) are installed to the satisfaction of the Road
Agent/town's engineer, guard rails are installed, if necessary, and the As-Built plans
have been reviewed and approved by the town's engineer.
10. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the
recording of documents with the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be January 23, 2009,
the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing to be held on the
application. Prior to the acceptance of the completed road by the Town, an acceptable
two year maintenance bond must be submitted by the applicant for the road in the amount
of 10% of the performance bond value.
AND;
Bob Furey MOVED to accept the application as complete, and to grant the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of SHB Properties, LLC, to effect two (2) wetland crossings on property on Pulpit Road, known as Tax M/L #12/65-5 & 6 as the four conditions for granting the Permit have been found to exist, subject to the following conditions. The Board wishes to note that the wetland crossing on Lot #12/65-8 was designed to qualify the lot for subdivision purposes only and is not intended to be constructed at any time.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of the financial security in the amount specified in the bond to be submitted in #6 of the Conditions Precedent above, and in the form of a letter of credit.
2. Submission of revised plans to include any checklist corrections and any revisions to the site plan as decided by the Board at the hearing.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be April 23, 2007,
the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by
the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written
request for extension is not submitted by that date the applicant is hereby put on notice
that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Completion of the site improvements as related to the wetland crossings, as shown on the approved construction design plan. The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon
notification to the Planning Department by the applicant that the project has been
completed, and a compliance hearing is held and confirms that the project has been
satisfactorily completed by no later than January 23, 2009.
Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board as his application was up next.
DOUGLAS HILL CONSTRUCTION, LLC Adjourned from 12/12/06
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/24 Lots
Location: Francestown Road a/k/a NH Route 136
Tax Map/Lot #5/16
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Dave Walker, PE, of Bedford Design Consultants and the applicant Douglas Hill, who recused himself from the Board and took a seat in the audience. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Dave Walker, PE, state that since the last meeting they had reviewed the Town Engineer’s review comments and had met with them twice which they found quite helpful. He added that the applicant had since received a letter from the Town Engineer dated January 19, 2007, that had 9 additional comments. He noted that comments #1 through 4 regarded drainage, #5, a plan correction, #6, driveways, #7, elevation for cisterns, #8, subdivision improvement guarantee worksheet (received and reviewed by the Board) and #9, a plan correction (headwall detail-discussed with the Board). Dave Walker wished to review comment #6, driveways and noted that some driveway locations had been calculated for the first couple of lots and some erosion plans for others, therefore, 9 locations
established thus far. He added that regarding the remaining 15 proposed lots the applicant wanted to wait to determine how the proposed road resulted once subgrade had been established before committing to those driveway locations. Dave Walker explained that the Town Engineer had requested that all driveway locations be shown on the driveway profile sheets or a waiver be obtained until subgrade was in. He added that he had a written waiver request with him this evening for submittal to the Board. Douglas Hill added that rather than put an arbitrary location on the profiles he preferred to wait until
subgrade was in on the site. The Chairman did not believe this was an unordinary request. The Coordinator clarified that this was in fact an out of the ordinary request but the Board could still consider it. She offered that the Board may choose to suggest that the driveway locations be shown on the As-Built Plan so that they may be recorded but that, in general, the plan set was
approved with these locations included. The Chairman asked the Coordinator what it was that the Board often waited for when large cuts and fills were involved in driveway constructions.
The Coordinator replied that Driveway Permits were done usually when the driveways were at subgrade status. Douglas Hill stated that he was agreeable to the As-Built suggestion. The Chairman asked if waiving the requirement as formerly suggested would cause any issue. The Coordinator replied that having the driveways in the plan set allows the Board to see potential locations and avoids amendments later on but the decision was up to the Board. Douglas Hill noted that because the proposed lots were small he wanted to give consideration to the placement of the homes and driveways. Don Duhaime stated that he had no issue in accepting a waiver. Dave Walker submitted the written waiver request and Dave Woodbury read it aloud to the Board.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to grant the waiver as requested in a letter dated January 23, 2007, by Dave Walker of Bedford Design Consultants, Inc., for the requirement of noting driveway locations on the plan set before subgrade is established with the understanding that driveway permits will be submitted for approval when the road is at subgrade and the driveway locations will be shown on the As-Built Plans for the subdivision. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill wished to comment that he felt Northpoint’s construction monitoring estimate seemed excessive and without slowing the application process he wondered if that could be reviewed during the time frame of the conditions precedent should the plan be approved. The Chairman asked if there was a particular item of concern on the estimate. Douglas Hill replied that he thought the overall monitoring estimate for the road construction was high compared to what he had seen for other subdivisions. He added that given that Northpoint was the Town’s new engineering firm he would be interested to know how the estimate were calculated against other estimates they had calculated in the past. The Chairman asked Douglas Hill what kind of cistern he proposed. Douglas Hill replied that he proposed a fiberglass cistern and noted that Northpoint had estimated 50 hours for its inspection which he found to be excessive. The Chairman questioned the heading of “Concrete Testing”.
The Coordinator noted that she believed this was a standardized heading. She added that a request regarding the estimate should come from the Board and the time frame to acquire a response could be done in the time frame Douglas Hill suggested. Douglas Hill then made a formal request to the Board to look into the matter.
The Coordinator stated that the only remaining issue involved the Stormwater Management Plans where the Board needed bond estimates and amounts according to the current interpretation of the Ordinance because the Regulation had not been changed yet as to when they should be submitted (from subdivision stage to building permit stage) but the applicant had also not yet supplied the estimate figure. Dave Walker replied that he would look into this. Bob Furey asked if all of Northpoint’s comments had now been addressed. Dave Walker replied that there were 8 remaining comments that were minor and that they had met with them the previous Friday when their January 19, 2007, letter was drafted. The Coordinator asked the applicant what his form of security would be. Douglas Hill replied that it would be a letter of credit.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan, Douglas Hill Construction,
LLC, Tax Map/Lot #5/16, N.H. Route 136, a/k/a Francestown Road, for the subdivision of 24 lots, one of which is an open space lot, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,
including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing, and
including Individual Stormwater Management Plans.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
4. Receipt of Northpoint Engineering, LLC's approval of the road plans and profiles.
5. Submission of the language of the form of the security for review and approval by
Town Counsel, the cost of which review shall be borne by the applicant.
6. Submission of the security, in the amount of $717,956.00 and in the form of a letter of
credit, for the construction of Christian Farm Drive as shown on the approved plans and
profiles.
7. Submission of the estimated construction inspection fees regarding the construction
of Christian Farm Drive in the amount of $60,060.00. A mandatory pre-construction
meeting is required to be held with the developer/agent, road contractor, Town's Road
Agent, and representatives of the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen, as well as
the Town's consulting engineer, prior to the start of the road construction project.
8. Submission of a performance bond for the construction of the cistern per Subdivision
Regulations Section IX-I, a), 5, d.
9. Submission of $3,500.00 for the cistern construction inspection (if this is not included in Northpoint's construction inspection estimate.)
10. Submission of bond estimates and the security for the ISWMP for Lots #5/16-23, -21,
6, -10, -11, -12, -13 in the form of letter of credit. (if needed)
11. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
12. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the
recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
13. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be
signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be April 23, 2007, the
confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further
action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a
written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on
notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the
approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. A 30,000 gallon underground fiberglass cistern shall be installed per the approved
design plans and inspected in accordance with the Job Inspection Sheet by the Town's
consulting engineer.
2. Christian Farm Drive is to be constructed in accordance with the Application for
Inspection and in accordance with the approved plans and profiles. After the base
(binder) course of pavement is approved by the Road Agent/town's engineer, the
developer will allow the road to set over one winter, during which time the developer
will be liable for the roads, including, but not limited to, winter maintenance thereof.
The wearing (finish) course of pavement shall be applied no later than one (1) year
from the date of application of the binder course. The Application for Inspection
must be turned into the Planning Department after the road is 100% complete, in
order to initiate final inspection and acceptance of the road, and the release of the
security for same after a compliance inspection and hearing is held.
3. Driveway locations shall be approved at sub-grade and driveways shall be installed
through binder to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town engineer and in
conformance with the Application for Inspection and approved driveway permits.
4. Per Subdivision Regulations Section V-S, 1, J), As-Built plans showing the final
location of any slope/drainage easement areas, and driveways, and the final road
construction details, in the form of three paper print copies and one electronic file,
certified by the applicant's engineer that the layout of the line and grade of all public
improvements is in accordance with the approved construction plans of the subdivision,
shall be submitted for review by the Town's consulting engineer, prior to the issuance of
any Certificates of Occupancy within the subdivision.
5. Submission of an executed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, an executed
Warranty Deed for Christian Farm Drive, and executed Slope and Drainage Easements.
The cost of recording any of the Deeds and other legal documents at the HCRD shall be
borne by the applicant
6. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same
with the HCRD.
7. The applicant shall install road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) to the
satisfaction of the Road Agent.
8. Driveway permits must be approved for completed acceptable installation by the
Road Agent and Planning Board prior to the issuance of any Certificates of
Occupancy (CO's) for the related lots.
9. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until the cistern has been installed,
inspected and approved by the town's consulting engineer and tested satisfactorily by
the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee and the driveways are installed
and approved by the Road Agent and the Planning Board and the road is installed
through binder pavement and the road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) are
installed to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town's engineer, guard rails are
installed, if necessary, and the As-Built plans have been reviewed and approved by
the town's engineer.
10. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the
recording of documents with the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be May 23, 2009,
the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing to be held on the
application. Prior to the acceptance of the completed road by the Town, an acceptable two
year maintenance bond must be submitted by the applicant for the road in the amount of
10% of the performance bond value.
AND;
Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the application as complete, and to grant the
Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of Douglas Hill Construction, LLC, to effect
1 (one) wetland crossing on property on N.H. Route 136, a/k/a Francestown Road, known
as Tax Map/Lot #5/16 as the four conditions for granting the Permit have been found to
exist, subject to the following conditions
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of the financial security for the installation as included in the road bond to
be submitted as Condition Precedent #6 of the subdivision approval above.
2. Submission of revised plans to include any checklist corrections and any revisions to
the site plan as decided by the Board at the hearing.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be April 23, 2007, the
confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the
Board. Should the conditions to approval not be fulfilled by the deadline date, and a
written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, an administrative NOTICE
OF DENIAL shall be issued without further action of the Board being necessary.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Completion of the site improvements as related to the wetland crossing, as shown on the approved construction design plan.
The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon notification to the Planning Department by the applicant that the project has been completed, and a compliance hearing is held and confirms that the project has been satisfactorily completed by no later than May 23, 2009.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill reclaimed his seat on the Board.
SIZEMORE, PAUL & MONTIEL, JEFFREY
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Beard Road & NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/29-1 & 5/30
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District & Commercial “Com” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants Paul Sizemore and Jeffrey Montiel. Abutters present were Shayna Bernard and Joseph Coffey.
Paul Sizemore stated that he proposed the lot line adjustment to gain more buffer between his site and his neighbors’. The Chairman asked if there was any proposed expansion for the property. Paul Sizemore stated that he had no plans to do so at this time or in the near future but even if he proposed this he knew that he would have to go in front of the Town meeting to rezone any expanded property to Commercial use. The Chairman noted that even more would be required with such a proposal requiring a vote on the Town Ballot. He noted that a certain buffer was required from his Commercial lot line and just because more land was proposed to be added to the Commercial lot through lot line adjustment it would not increase the dimensions of the Commercial
lot.
Shayna Bernard asked if there were requirements of an applicant taking down portions of existing stonewalls where they would need to replace them. The Chairman asked Paul Sizemore if he intended to remove any portions of existing stonewalls with his proposal. Paul Sizemore replied that he did not. The Chairman stated that he understood that parts of stonewalls could be removed for driveway installation but that was not the case here and Mr. Sizemore would not be allowed to conduct commercial operations on the property that he was purchasing. He noted that what he was able to do by owning this acquired property was prevent someone from building a house to close to his lot line. Dave Woodbury added that a note on the plan stated that the acquired land was not to
be considered a separate building lot. The Chairman stated that the land acquired was not even big enough to be a building lot. Paul Sizemore clarified that he currently had 1.6 acres of residential land and with the proposed lot line adjustment that would be increased to 2.29 acres. Shayna Bernard noted that this would be big enough for a building lot. The Chairman asked Paul Sizemore what his frontage measured. Paul Sizemore replied that it was 124’. The Chairman stated that this was not adequate frontage for a building lot.
Jeff Montiel noted that the access to Paul Sizemore’s existing driveway which entered off NH Route 77 was what he wanted to adjust by his proposal. Paul Sizemore stated that this was currently frontage and the abutters wanted to know if he could access a backlot from his driveway but it was not a backlot because he did not have a front lot due to lack of frontage. The Chairman agreed.
The Coordinator wished to clarify that 0.69 acres was proposed to be added to the existing 10.09 acres and the potential existed for a lot to be created with the right amount of frontage by re-subdividing and making another lot because Commercial and Residential Zoning was allowed on the same lot even though that might not be the applicant’s intent. The Chairman stated that the applicant could take a piece of his Commercial property and add it to his Residential property to gain 200’ of frontage for a building lot (even though it would compromise his Site Plan) but he could not do the reverse without going to the Town ballot.
Shayna Bernard asked if the proposed lot line adjustment was attaching land to his Commercial property or the property he purchased from Rick Martin. The Chairman believed that the property purchased from Rick Martin was joined to the existing Commercial lot as was the property from this lot line adjustment. Paul Sizemore wished to note that both of those pieces were Zoned Residential-Agricultural, not Commercial. The Chairman concurred and reiterated that the only way to have commercially Zoned property change to Residential was to be voted in on the Town ballot.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the waivers requested for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the application of Paul Sizemore and Jeffrey Montiel, Minor Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Beard Road & NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/29-1 and 5/30, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District and Commercial “Com” District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman did not see a need for a site walk as members of the Board were familiar with the property.
Douglas Hill asked Paul Sizemore why he proposed the lot line adjustment. Paul Sizemore replied that it was for increased buffer and to access the back field if necessary. From the audience, Joseph Coffey stated that they had not received notification of the proposal. The Coordinator stated that they would need to be a direct abutter to be notified. Paul Sizemore replied that they were as they resided in his parents’ former home. The Coordinator noted that the Town had not received the deeds yet and this property was still in the name of Right Way Builders, Inc.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Paul D. Sizemore and Jeffrey Montiel, for Tax Map/Lot #5/29-1 & 5/30, N.H. Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road and Beard Road, such that Parcel A of 0.69 acres is annexed from Tax Map/Lot #5/30 to Tax Map/Lot #5/29-1, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,
including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Submission of written waiver request for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies.
4. Payment of any outstanding fees including the cost of recording the mylar at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be February 23,
2007, confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action
by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written
request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that
that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2007
1. Approval of minutes of November 28, 2006, distributed at the January 9, 2007, meeting, with or without changes. (No Copies)
Bob Furey MOVED to approve the minutes of November 28, 2006, as written. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Approval of minutes of December 12, 2006, distributed at the January 9, 2007, meeting, with or without changes. (No Copies)
Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the minutes of December 12, 2006, as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Driveway Permit Application for Thibeault Corporation of New England, Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-4, for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator explained that when the plans for the above noted driveway were submitted there was a section dealing with the removal of the guardrail and this had been an issue for the Board as they were uncertain that the slope on either side of the driveway could be safely regraded. She added that the applicant had been told previously to get in touch with the Selectmen and the Road Agent to confirm this. The Coordinator further added that she would research the matter and get back to the Board with an update.
4. Driveway Permit Applications for compliance approval for Frederick and Celia Lorden, Nissitissit Development, McCurdy Road, Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/19-1 through 5 and #12/19-11 through 14, for the Board’s action. (Drive-by prior to meeting)
Don Duhaime stated that he did not believe the driveways for Lot #’s 12/19-12 and 13 met the -3% grade requirement at their entrance from the roadway and were pitched strangely with the drainage side of the driveway higher than the opposite side. Douglas Hill added that on Lot #12/19-12 the driveway had no culvert installed in its ditchline. The Coordinator noted that these driveway plans stated that the need for a culvert would be determined at the time of installation. The Chairman suggested that the Board could ask for bonding and note that the Board had questioned the construction of all the driveways on this applicant’s plan.
Douglas Hill asked if the Road Agent was responsible for the final sign-off on driveway construction. The Coordinator replied that this was not the case when the Planning Board placed special requirements on the construction. The Board determined that the driveways to Lot #’s 12/19-2,3,4,11 and 14 were constructed appropriately while those to Lot #’s 12/19-12 and 13 needed review, 12/19-1 was not acceptable and 12/19-5 was not yet completed.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to confirm compliance for Driveway Permit Applications for proposed driveways on Lot #’s 12/19-2,3,4,11 and 14. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5. Notice of Deliberative Session, Friday, February 9, 2007, School Gym, was distributed for the Board’s information.
6. A request for volunteers for Town Report Photo was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that the cover picture for the Town Report this year would be of members of volunteer Boards and Committees. She asked which Board member might be available for this effort. No Board member was willing to be photographed for the Town Report.
7. A copy of a faxed letter received January 10, 2007, from Dorothy and Jessica Eisenhaure to New Boston Planning Board, Re: request for extension on conditions precedent, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the conditions precedent for Dorothy and Jessica Eisenhaure to June 30, 2007. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
8. Read File: Announcement from Office of Energy and Planning, Re: 14th Annual Spring Planning & Zoning Conference, Saturday, April 28, 2007.
9. Read File: Public Notice from the Town of Epsom, Board of Adjustment, Re: Zoning Appeal Case for Application to construct a Personal Wireless Service Facility.
10. Discussion, re: placement of boulders to temporarily block slope on Foxberry Drive, Tax Map/Lot #8/84-30-1.
The Coordinator explained that she had written to Morgan Hollis, Esq., to inform him that the bucket load of fill used to block the above noted driveway did not meet the requirements of the Board. She noted that Alan Brown had met with the Road Agent and said they would address the issue in the next few weeks but asked if boulders would be acceptable as a blockade until the driveway was constructed for Lot #8/84-30-1 as he did not want to install a guardrail. Don Duhaime asked if the drainage problem on this site had been resolved. The Coordinator replied that that was a separate issue and that Alan Brown was waiting for the appropriate weather/season to address it. Dave Woodbury thought that a jersey barrier would be the best solution to the slope issue but that if
boulders were placed in such a way so as to create a solid face rather than individual boulders it would better address the issue. The Board agreed.
11. A copy of New Boston Planning Department’s Statement of Condition, 2006 Income and
Expense, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that there was a typographical error on the Chairman’s salary.
12. A copy of a memo dated January 8, 2007, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, from
David Preece, SNHPC, Re: Fiscal Impact Analysis and Impact Fee Feasibility Study
Proposal and Scope of Work, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that the above noted study would cost $8K if accepted on the ballot as a warrant article and would involve discussion with department heads in the Town and long term planning, impacts on these departments and the differences in determining money for services. She noted that this would be a way for the Town to address such impacts on a broader basis and could possibly eliminate the need in the future for fiscal impact fee assessments by developers.
13. Notice of SNHPC grant approval from NHDES for Local Source Water
Protection Program 2007. (No Copies)
The Coordinator explained that SNHPC had applied for and won $15k in grant money to run the above noted program in the towns of Candia, Chester and New Boston, New Hampshire.
Dave Woodbury wished to discuss how the topic of the Bedford Road/Klondike Corner issue could be worked into subsequent meetings by the Board. The Coordinator stated that with the Master Plan now adopted the Board should consider comprehensive planning for issues such as this on a Town-wide scale. She added that in regard to the Bedford Road/Klondike Corner subject it may be appropriate for the Recreation Department to weigh in with their comments. Dave Woodbury wondered if, given the scenarios on Bedford Road, there was a way to label the current applications for development in that area as scattered and premature. The Coordinator replied that in order to do that the Board would need to prove that Town services were suffering
and with the CIP working effectively and no overcrowding currently in the School that might be a hard case to prove.
Don Duhaime thought that the Town should require developers in this area to fix the “S” curve problem on Bedford Road as he did not see a connection through to Klondike Corner in the next 10 to 15 years. The Coordinator noted that the Road Agent was working on a cost for assessing developers’ fair share costs and that Ray Shea’s (Sandford Surveying and Engineering) study on “S” bends would be helpful towards that also. Don Duhaime added that if the developments in this area were approved there would be approximately 200 more cars and as a new resident living on Bedford Road he had seen three roll overs in three years in front of his home. Bob Furey though that it would be appropriate to have a discussion as a group on this subject before
the next hearing. The Coordinator noted that it may be appropriate to include the Conservation Commission and the Recreation Department in such discussions. She added that based on Dave Woodbury’s comments regarding the option to deem certain developments “scattered and premature” this would be difficult to impose with no regulation in place.
At 11:30 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien, Minutes Approved:
Recording Clerk
| 
