New Boston Planning Board
Minutes of April 10, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, Don Duhaime, Stu Lewin; ex-officio Christine Quirk and alternate Barry Charrest. 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 Mike Sindoni, Recreation Department, Lee Brown, Recreation Commission, Jack Munn, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC), Dave Ely, Ken Lombard, Cyndie Wilson, Rachel Kelly, SNHPC, Timothy and Tracy Crowell, Anne Johnson, Kim DiPietro, Craig Heafield, Alden Beauchemin, Dick Wood, Jay Marden, Wayne Charrest, Gerard Beloin, Robert and Margorie Moreau, Mike Carter, Patty Rice and Jason Wenzel, Ken Barss and Elliot Konner.
Discussion with Recreation Department/Commissioners, re: recreation planning for New Boston.
Present for this discussion were Mike Sindoni, Recreation Director and Lee Brown, Chairman of the Recreation Commission.
The Chairman stated that the Board was often approached with questions regarding more recreational land for Town use and they wanted to pose the question to Recreation as to what they were looking for in land that might be donated by developers who were proposing subdivisions in Town. Mike Sindoni stated that while the Recreation Department did not have a formal presentation for this evening they were happy to appear before the Board and answer any questions. He added that he had been involved with other Department Heads in the last few weeks along with Jack Munn (SNHPC), regarding how impact fees could affect certain Town departments. Mike Sindoni added that given the current fields used on Old Coach Road and behind the Town Hall he honestly did not know what the
Recreation Department would say if they were approached with land offered by developers because of other issues that would then come into play such as maintenance, proximity to the town center, parking and traffic. He noted that he realized that as the Town grew expansion would be needed but that Recreation’s main focus was on having a community center with gymnasium space over additional ball fields. Mike Sindoni added that this option relied on the School study recently approved at Town Meeting which could impact Recreation’s plans, however, acquiring additional land for ball fields was not something that was on the radar at this point in time. He stated that he had been keeping the Recreation Commissioner informed of the Department Head’s fiscal impact study over the next few months and had been doing research on other towns regarding their impact fees and how they related to their recreation departments. Mike Sindoni stated that he
wondered if the Planning Board had any information regarding the same as he knew that Bedford, NH, used impact fees and their recreation department had received funds used for capital projects such as field maintenance.
Lee Brown, Chairman of the Recreation Commission, stated that the Recreation Department needed funding over land and that they had been under the impression when they were invited to tonight’s meeting that the Planning Board was going to speak to them and explain their thought process regarding impact fees. He added that in researching Bedford New Hampshire’s methods regarding impact fees they discovered that they had limitations on the uses for the funding. Lee Brown stated that he thought that New Boston needed to determine as a town what their priorities were and where the Recreation Department fell in the pecking order to receiving similar funding. He added that he understood that funds from the Capital Improvement Plan were necessary to improve physical
structures and facilities in the Town but stressed that the Recreation Department often made improvements with private funding such as the dugouts being installed. He added that the current ball fields were created by volunteers with land donated 15-20 years ago, therefore, a discussion was never had regarding where the Recreation Department should be headed with Capital Improvement funding in the future. Lee Brown stated that another topic involved the possibility of Recreation taking over the reclaimed portion of a sand pit currently being utilized by the Highway Department, therefore, to explore more areas of recreation land would not be beneficial. He reiterated that they were interested in gathering information on what other towns did regarding impact fees, etc. and also where they were in line for Capital Improvement funding. Christine Quirk thought that it was important to consider recreational land that might be needed 25 to 30 years from now as once
land was lost to development it would be gone forever. Lee Brown agreed that their research had shown that another ball field for the older youth was needed but this could be handled out on Old Coach Road near the existing ball fields. He added that although expansion in that area seemed feasible it would still need wetland delineation and soils mapping as the Forestry Commission had reservations about placement. Lee Brown agreed that in 25-30 years with heavier densities in the Town more land might be needed but they did not need any land beyond the concentration they had now. He thought that it would be more prudent to put funding into current needs now versus owning land for the distant future.
Don Duhaime asked if the community center needed to be located behind the Town Hall or if there were other options. Lee Brown replied that they had given this much thought and had also worked with the Town Hall’s master plan of looking to gain more space for their offices upstairs where the Recreation offices were located now. He noted that they would like to keep a community center close to Town Hall for several reasons. Lee Brown stated that one reason was the after school program with 45-50 children enrolled where it would be beneficial to keep that service close to the School. He added that another notable was the reasonable acquisition costs associated with acquiring the land where the White Buildings were located on versus possible site work and other
added costs for other areas. Lee Brown noted that at “New Boston Speaks” residents spoke of a need to protect the corridor encompassing the playground, ball field and skate park behind the Town Hall and the benefits of keeping it a common area to serve the townspeople. He added that a town pool had also been considered but that was a distant topic. Lee Brown stated that much thought had been given in the last few years to what Recreation’s needs were and that Roger Dignard, resident and architect had given helpful guidance regarding the Recreation Department’s needs balanced with affordability.
Don Duhaime asked if, given the reality of higher density subdivisions being presented to the Board, if smaller pocket parks/playgrounds in these areas would be something that the Recreation Department would consider. Lee Brown replied that he was raised in northern New Jersey and benefited from parks like these but thought the question of whether New Boston fit the same type of cosmopolitan area was up for discussion. He added that while many recreation departments had the measures to maintain such parks New Boston did not. Lee Brown further added that he was not against planning for areas to be set aside as future parks for concentrated areas in Town. Don Duhaime asked if there were any full time maintenance personnel that worked for the Recreation Department.
Lee Brown replied that they employed a director and assistant director while subcontractors were bid and hired for maintenance such as field mowing. The Chairman clarified that if an additional park were taken on it needed to be understood that with that came maintenance costs. Lee Brown pointed out that a troubling factor to consider was security and noted that the shrubs placed at the Nyquist Memorial located at the ball fields on Old Coach Road were stolen soon after planting which prompted the installation of video cameras. He noted that these security cameras served dual purposes and covered multiple locations such as the Transfer Station entrance. Lee Brown stated that it was important to realize that there were bad elements everywhere, even in New Boston, therefore, having the satellite parks being suggested would increase the need for security such as a neighborhood association as the police department could not be expected to monitor these
areas at all times. In light of this Lee Brown stated that he thought it a better idea to concentrate recreation facilities so they could be better managed. He noted that needs were increasing with roughly 260 children enrolled in the basketball and baseball programs in the Town and soccer camps growing each year. Don Duhaime stated that when his children were young the leagues helped to maintain the fields. Lee Brown noted that a field cost $150K to construct after land was obtained and also being president of a multi-town baseball/softball league he heard a lot of facts and figures regarding these costs. He thought it better to expand on current facilities and make them multi-use such as what had been done in other surrounding towns. Lee Brown added that in this way in might be possible to host tournaments for other towns whereas this was not possible now as the fields were not up to acceptable standards. He noted that the New Boston
Recreation Department belonged to an association of recreation departments that shared ideas and could provide the Board with the results of some of the findings they had gathered if they wished.
The Chairman stated that given the high density on Bedford Road and what was coming before the Board in development proposals in that area it seemed that a recreational spot would work well for that end of Town so that those residents did not have to travel to the center. He added that not initially knowing what the Recreation Department would want the idea of smaller pocket parks came up also, but he felt that Recreation had provided them some much needed answers this evening. Lee Brown stated that there would also be an impact felt by the Town’s recreation when outside communities such as Goffstown grew as many of New Boston’s older youth opted to play outside the community in Goffstown. He explained that if Goffstown baseball grew too large the New Boston
residents that played would be kicked back into the Town’s program which could stretch the needs of its facilities. Lee Brown reiterated that
reasonable growth numbers said that an additional field for older youth would be needed in the future but how and when this was accomplished was still unknown.
Stu Lewin stated that the Board would benefit from Recreation’s information gathering and offering an analysis of how this information related to Planning. The Chairman clarified that the Board had no working database regarding this topic and that the subject of land donation by developers for recreational use had been a recurring question they dealt with. Lee Brown noted that another point regarding centralization of facilities was that it benefited families with siblings from having to travel to fields all over Town for games. He further noted that he knew of other towns with such issues. Don Duhaime asked if the ball fields on Old Coach Road were expandable. Lee Brown replied that it would need evaluation but area to the west of the ball fields seemed
promising. He noted that Bob Todd, LLS, had done some work on this topic 10 years prior. Lee Brown added that if it was deemed unfeasible then there was an area off Cochran Hill Road that might work. Christine Quirk noted that this area was near the Friendly Beaver Campground.
Lee Brown stated that Recreation had given the proposal of a community center much thought and would create and perform additional research to that cause. He added that they were open to input and appreciated the heads up regarding the information the Board had provided concerning growth of the Town. The Chairman asked how Recreation would handle a monetary donation if developers chose to go that route. Lee Brown replied that they would go on Bedford New Hampshire’s example where they would use the funds to create more facilities as a more visible benefit versus using it for maintenance expenses.
Interested party, Jay Marden felt that some type of informal facility, i.e. not a formal ballfield, for kids to play on should not be ruled out. Don Duhaime added that kids always had the option of using their own back yards. Lee Brown noted that Recreation did not have any rules that prohibited kids from playing informally on any of their current facilities. Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, stated that she was glad that Recreation was leaning towards centralized facilities in contrast to having ball fields all over Town. She added that if the Conservation Commission were ever given some flat dry land for conservation easement they would have no reason why informal play could not be allowed on it. Interested party Dave Ely noted that sand lots he played
on as a child were not even Town owned. He asked why developers could not be asked to create parks within their own developments. Cyndie Wilson noted that a homeowner’s association would have to become involved regarding maintenance.
The Chairman asked if that would make such a park usable by that neighborhood only. Dave Ely replied that that would be up to the Board to decide but did not think residents outside such a neighborhood would drive there when they had access to facilities on Old Coach Road with parking.
The Chairman thanked the members of Recreation for speaking with the Board and added that they had answered many of their questions.
Discussion with Jack Munn, Senior Planner, SNHPC, re: next steps for future planning by the Planning Board.
Present for this discussion was Jack Munn, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission.
Jack Munn stated that the Master Plan had come up with a number of recommendations for Zoning changes and in the interest of time last fall and winter two committees were formed which successfully addressed proposed amendments that dealt with Natural Resources/Wetlands and Conservation/Open Space in time for the March 2007 Town Meeting. He noted that there were still more recommendations from the Master Plan that had not been addressed such as the conceptual area known as the Village District which could encourage mixed usage such as Commercial/Residential. Jack Munn stated that one of the most important factors to consider in this conceptual Village District would be to establish and preserve the historical character of the Town through voluntary or involuntary guidelines so
that its property owners had a sense of what the Town’s residents wanted to maintain. The Chairman stated that he found this concept outrageous and questioned how the Town could dictate what residents in the Village should do when they paid taxes and owned property that had been there for 100 years. He asked how it could be justified that people moving into Town should be able to dictate by new rules and codes what people who were already living in the Village should do so as not to offend anyone else in Town. The Chairman clarified that the question to be asked was where the problem was. He asked why another new law or rule needed to put into place and that this would be the theme he would focus on from now on. The Chairman offered the example of the Steep Slopes and Wetland ordinances which he did not feel were crafted based on an identified problem. He noted that the proper method should focus on starting from a concern and working
toward a solution. Jack Munn noted that franchised businesses coming into the Village was a viable concern as there were no regulations in the Town to prevent that from occurring. Don Duhaime offered the example of Stowe, Vermont, where businesses that wanted to come to that town needed to construct according to town specifications. Jack Munn clarified that such towns had guidelines in place and how such guidelines could be adopted in New Boston was up to the Planning Board. The Chairman noted that site plan review dictated how buildings in Town needed to look from the outside. Jack Munn noted that site plan regulations were good for that but could be further enhanced by guidelines that better dictated architectural renderings of structures. He added that this was a common practice employed by many towns. Jack Munn noted that if a Village district were in place areas of concern could be identified by residents within the Village who would
have major input in defining what they would like to see followed by a possible amendment to Site Plan Regulations or a Town vote for a new Zoning district. The Chairman felt that the problem with that suggestion was that drive by residents who owned property outside the Village perimeter would be voting on, for example, what the future of the site next to Dodge’s store should become. He added that if a franchise that resembled McDonald’s came to the Village no one would support them because it was not something that the Town wanted there. The Chairman further added that TD Banknorth voluntarily changed the appearance of their sign in the Village when one of their neighbors complained. The Chairman stated that more and more he was seeing committees formed headed or supported by SNHPC with great “feel good” ideas about how the Town should be but did not understand that they were dramatically affecting certain residents in great
number. He offered the example of two major landowners in Town, Friendly Beaver Campground and Dodge Farms. The Chairman explained that both of these properties sat on large amounts of wetlands and that Dodge Farm also had many Steep Slopes, therefore, every time a new “feel good” rule was devised a giant percentage of their worth was
eliminated even though they were never targeted to begin with. He added that by enacting more regulations like these their land would become more limited, therefore, he felt that such rules would destroy the Town without having such regulations more targeted. The Chairman stated that arbitrary 50’ setbacks from wetlands were not going to help the Town because it was not justifiable-it was a made up number and real people were being affected by it. Jack Munn stated that wetlands were a totally different issue and the Village was what his topic of discussion was this evening. The Chairman replied that the inference was the same as Jack Munn was suggesting overlays which people in those suggested districts would never vote for and the Board would never support. He added that the Board would force such
applicants to do what they needed to do. Jack Munn stated that he understood that there must be a balance of laws and regulations with the rights of property owners. The Chairman noted that the Board was beginning these discussions earlier in the year so that they had ample time to properly address these topics before they needed to address a regulation proposal that was missing pieces at the end of the year.
Jack Munn asked the Chairman how many years he had been involved with the Planning Board. The Chairman replied that it was eight years. Jack Munn stated that he had worked in planning for 26 years and had worked both sides of the issue with much experience. He noted that the key point to note was what the main desires were of the people residing in the Village area as they would have the greatest input. Jack Munn suggested that the process could begin with public workshops to get that input or special Planning Board meetings could be held to invite public discussion, not just about Zoning, but water and sewer, parking and access issues also. He noted that SNHPC had applied for a grant to look at water resources and ways to protect wells in the Village area
which was part of the whole concept in looking at the Village. Jack Munn further noted that these topics were raised during the process of updating the Master Plan and he was here not to set an agenda but to review those recommendations. The Chairman stated that he felt that the Master Plan was skewed too because for the vote to be accurate based on a two lot minimum acre per vote Dodge Farm would have had 400 votes and the Friendly Beaver Campground would have had 85 which would have resulted in a different outcome for the newly adopted ordinances. Jay Marden commented that that was a fallacy and until those lands were subdivided those were individual voters. David Ely noted that the democratic process did not work this way. The Chairman stated that it seemed by his reasoning that half the Town was imposing their will on singular landowners who owned large properties. Jack Munn noted that Willard Dodge had been very involved in the last Zoning
amendment. The Chairman replied that Willard Dodge was not the land owner of the parcel he referred to nor did he pay the taxes. He added that Willard Dodge had been appalled to discover that his land had Steep Slopes. Jack Munn recalled that he had advised the Coordinator of some areas of concern regarding Steep Slopes but SNHPC was not involved with that Ordinance. The Chairman noted that timing with Steep Slopes had been part of the issue too which was why the Board was
starting these discussions earlier in the year going forward. Jack Munn suggested that the Board talk amongst themselves, get input and feedback and decide if additional public input is needed and if that was the case then a list of changes to be considered could be devised. He explained that the Master Plan had tried to balance economics, growth and tax base and was not just for natural resource protection.
Jack Munn stated that an additional item that had come out of the Master Plan was the public’s desire for a Small Scale Commercial District as commercial properties were scattered now and such a district could include small grocery and drug stores. The Chairman noted that he was a large proponent of that although he knew they would run into the “not in my backyard” issue. Jack Munn continued that the gravel pit areas in Town were possible areas for either recreation or small scale commercial use. Regarding the Limited Light Industrial District Jack Munn noted that this zoning was maxed out for the Town, therefore, it could not be considered as a boost to the Town’s tax base. The Chairman noted that the one industrial area in the Town sat on
top of an aquifer.
Jack Munn stated that the concept of a Multi-Family/Residential overlay could be a floating Zone or be approved as was done with CUP’s which would give the Board more safeguards to protect existing single family homes. He added that there was an option to expand the existing Forestry Conservation district which encompassed the Tracking Station. Jack Munn asked if that area was slated to remain in conservation. The Chairman replied that at the last meeting with representatives of the Tracking Station they had confirmed that it would. Jack Munn stated that there was one other item he wished to discuss and that was a Water Resource Management Plan which a State statute encouraged to have towns incorporate into their master plans. He noted that since SNHPC
had applied for a grant to do a source water study for the Town which would address aquifer protection, ground water and the Village, they probably would not need to update the Town’s 1989 Water Resource Management Plan. Jack Munn concluded that other identified items could be housekeeping items and improvements to existing Subdivision Regulations.
The Chairman recalled that one conceptual overlay district was the low income housing district and asked how it would be determined what residents pulled that short straw. Jack Munn explained that the Governor had put together a round table to discuss legislation that would incorporate grants into the budget for affordable housing studies and the best strategies to work with issues they might raise. Dave Ely noted that the topic dealt with affordable housing not low income housing with single incomes under $50-60K as now these people could not afford to buy homes in the Town. The Chairman stated that his “short straw” comment referred to a property owner whose land might be devalued if it became zoned for affordable housing. Dave Ely replied that there
was assistance available from non-profit development agencies which could be instrumental in getting these land owners their full value for their properties. Jay Marden noted that Thibeault Corporation was considering proposals for affordable housing on their lots owned behind Byam Road.
Jay Marden asked the Chairman if his previous comments on site plan review implied that the Board could control the design of a building if a company met the Town’s specifications.
The Chairman replied that this was correct and he thought they had done so in the past. Jay Marden was unsure of this and offered the example of the historical district in Boston, Massachusetts, where a developer came in and tore down historical buildings to rebuild a yellow brick river house because he conformed with all specifications and this was the reasoning behind the inception of the Beacon Hill Commission which was very particular in its specifications for what buildings could and could not have. The Chairman replied that such groups corrupted the whole system as issues could be taken to the other extreme where a property owner would not be allowed to replace their lead based windows as had happened in Amherst, NH. Jay Marden countered that such commissions helped to increase the value of properties. Jack
Munn noted that the Master Plan had not suggested a historic district, but a village district which was totally different.
The Chairman stated that if discussion regarding proposed ordinances was based on perceived faults at the outset then the Board could be more sensitive to what the issues were and how they should be addressed. He clarified that by identifying a problem first a statement of purpose could be devised when considering new ordinances. Dave Ely wished to note that the wording in the Master Plan read that the Town’s character should be maintained and noted that a large corporation with a fleet of lawyers could propose a large franchise in the Village and there was nothing in the Regulations to prevent it from happening. Jack Munn offered an example of this in Keene, NH, when he had worked with a large out of town Connecticut developer with plans to construct a Walmart
and Lowes. He noted that the planning board had a paragraph about architectural guidelines in their regulations but these were not enough and the plan had to be put on hold so that an architect could come in and rework the guidelines. Jack Munn added that if you drove by the Conover area in Keene, NH, where these buildings were constructed you could see how well it turned out based on the great effort that was put into it. He noted that New Boston could easily be faced with a smaller corporate developer that could keep the Town at bay noting a lack of regulations to prevent them from building. Dave Ely added that the Master Plan committee had discussed historic guidelines and decided they were too onerous and that the Town did not want to broach that subject. He also noted that the Town did not have a Design Review Committee. He noted that all the Master Plan recommended on this subject was that the character of the Village be maintained and not
over run by the wrong developer and that new development would be fine but should be in character with existing architecture and scale. Jack Munn noted that grandfathered structures should not be imposed penalties based on the stipulations of character. The Chairman felt that by knowing what the issue was they had reached an agreement on what was not wanted in the Village district being structures that were not in character with the Town. He added that any regulation put in place to support these desires should not contain waivers so that an applicant could not work around the requirements.
Jack Munn stated that another topic for consideration was transfer of development rights which was a complex subject but also a way to allow for more density in certain areas versus others. He added that there were other things for the Town to consider instead such as credits and density bonuses and many towns were looking at wetland mitigation by banking concepts whereby builders provided funds toward wetland mitigation for a town to use towards easements and elsewhere. Jack Munn stated that this was a popular concept with towns in bringing about wetland mitigation and developers liked it too as they were not bound to provide mitigation on site but could bank into a fund to protect other parts of a community. He noted that this was
already in place at the State level. The Chairman asked Jack Munn how he would address, for example, a 20 lot subdivision off Bedford Road as being less developable through an ordinance such as the Wetland Ordinance so that only a 6 lot subdivision was allowed. Jack Munn stated that he would need to review the plan and see if there were any flags regarding Zoning but he couldn’t give an absolute answer to that question immediately. Cyndie Wilson stated that at the time the FLESA Committee was operative in town the Forestery and Conservation District was also enacted and encompassed the Tracking Station. She stated that the intent was to expand that district into neighboring areas such as the Lorden piece just mentioned by the Chairman but this was never done. She noted that the district could be used
in other areas of town. Jack Munn noted that the standards used for that Zoning could be considered also. Cyndie Wilson noted that developer transfer rights could empower land owners where she, for example, could trade or transfer development rights on her property if a developer agreed to lessen density on theirs. The Chairman noted that not every acre of land was developable which was the opposite thought process of most developers. He added that the Planning Board knew the lands of the Town better and what ordinances might be helpful. Cyndie Wilson wished to note that the area off Bedford road that the Chairman referred to was not suitable for cluster development. Jack Munn added that care needed to be taken to avoid spot zoning scenarios and that the Town needed to be realistic and logical in determining that some development could occur near certain wetlands while other types could not. Dave Ely asked about high intensity soils
surveys. Jack Munn replied that such surveys could be required of applicants. He added that he should take a look at the backlots off Bedford Road in question against the Regulations. The Chairman stated that the Board needed to know how they could apply the Regulations to that area of Town as it differed from other areas. He added that in fairness he wanted to put his opinion up front first so that it was understood where he was coming from. Jack Munn stated that tonight’s frank discussion was a good one and at some point in the future the Board should figure out a list of items they would like to see worked on. The Chairman noted that they were having such discussions at the beginning of the meeting rather than at the end when it was late and they felt less productive. Jack Munn thought that in consideration of the economy it was a good time to start looking at these topics.
TIMOTHY AND TRACY CROWELL
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Auto Restoration Home Business
Location: 456 Chestnut Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #15/29-9
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants Timothy and Tracy Crowell. An abutter present was Anne Johnson.
Timothy Crowell submitted revised plans to the Board based on minor corrections noted by the Coordinator. The Chairman asked how many parking spaces were on the plan and if their size had been noted. Timothy Crowell replied that there were two customer parking spaces and that the size had been noted on the plan. The Chairman asked if Mr. Crowell would have any employees. Timothy Crowell replied that he would be the only one. The Chairman stated that the application appeared to be complete.
Christine Quirk MOVED to accept the application of Timothy and Tracy Crowell, NRSPR, Auto Restoration Home Business, Location: 456 Chestnut Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #15/29-9, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked for clarification on the scope of the proposed business. Timothy Crowell replied that he wished to focus on automobile restoration work on antique vehicles with a secondary focus to collision and rust work. The Chairman clarified that the applicant proposed a business that would consider anything from collision to restoration with the specialty being restoration. He asked if the applicant had made any provisions for painting and emissions. Timothy Crowell replied that he had contacted the State for those requirements. The Chairman noted that the applicant would require some type of paint booth system and have evaporation limits to abide by. Timothy Crowell replied that this was understood and that the State had sent him that
information. The Chairman asked if the State had the will or fortitude to enforce such requirements. Timothy Crowell replied that they did and that he would also need to speak with the State fire marshal along with other check points. The Chairman asked Timothy Crowell if he had given consideration to how he would dispose of the wide spectrum of chemicals required for the operation of his business. Timothy Crowell replied that he would use a company that dealt with retrieval of hazardous waste but was waiting to contact certain vendors he would require until he knew where his application stood. The Chairman stated that a note needed to be on the plan to provide the assurance that chemicals would not be disposed of on site. He added that a company name for such disposal was not required as that could change.
The Chairman asked if Mr. Crowell lived on the site. Timothy Crowell replied that he did. The Chairman clarified that this was a major premise of having a home business as it reduced the chance that the applicant would not take proper care of the land. Christine Quirk asked if the applicant had considered how hazardous chemicals would be stored on site. Timothy Crowell replied that, again, he had not considered everything as he did not know how much research he should do before getting his application approved. The Chairman guessed that Timothy Crowell was likely to have approximately 10 gallons of miscellaneous paints and thinners on site at any given time. Timothy Crowell suggested that these chemicals could be stored in a steel fire proof cabinet.
Don Duhaime asked if this cabinet would have a lock on it. Timothy Crowell replied that that was usually not the case but he could put it in a separate mixing room which could be locked at night when he was done working. The Chairman thought that was a good suggestion. He asked if there would be a business sign on site. Timothy Crowell replied that eventually he would like to have a sign. The Chairman noted that the Board
suggested a sign in order to deter turn-arounds in abutting driveways rather than for advertising purposes. Timothy Crowell asked if there was a limit to the number of signs he could have as he lived on a long dirt driveway. The Chairman did not see why once he was on his private property he could not put as many signs up as he wished. He asked how long the driveway was. Timothy Crowell replied that it was a tenth of a mile and the proposed shop would be an additional tenth of a mile beyond his house. The Chairman thought that Mr. Crowell should put up whatever signs were needed on his property to direct patrons. He asked if Mr. Crowell had any nearby neighbors. Timothy Crowell replied that he had one that shared a portion of his driveway before it branched off to their residence. The
Chairman noted that a business sign would be instrumental in assuring that patrons did not turn down this neighbors portion of the driveway and go to the wrong house. The abutter who shared the driveway, Anne Johnson, stated that she did not have an issue with the applicant’s home business proposal. The Chairman stated that with a home business the proprietor took on the responsibility of not inconveniencing their neighbors.
Christine Quirk asked if the plan should be forwarded to the Fire Wards for their recommendations. The Chairman replied that it should and that they were likely to have some of the same requirements made by the State regarding emissions, etc. He added that Fire Wards would likely suggest some type of heat detection system be installed on the site. He asked if Timothy Crowell had read Section 319 of the Zoning Ordinance. Timothy Crowell replied that he had. The Chairman stated to Anne Johnson that as an abutter she should be familiar with the fact that the requirement that a home business owner resided on site differed greatly from a commercial business as there could only be two customer parking spaces, no outside storage or waste drum, a maximum of two
employees that did not reside on the premises and all work had to be done inside a structure on site, thereby not affecting the surrounding property or environment. Don Duhaime asked how noise levels would be controlled from machinery such as compressors. Timothy Crowell replied that this, as all machinery for the business, would be operated inside the building.
The Chairman noted that if the applicant ever wanted to build or remodel relative to the business he would need a Building Permit. He noted that the hours of operation listed were 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and asked how he would control the option that vehicles might be delivered to the site after business hours in consideration of abutters. Timothy Crowell replied that he had not thought about it but noted that he worked at a small shop now and as they had never had to deal with after hours drop offs he did not think it would become an issue with his business. The Chairman clarified that this meant that the applicant would not encourage nor discourage after hours drop offs. He asked abutter Anne Johnson what impact such drop offs would have on her. Anne Johnson
replied that she did not think it would pose an issue as it seemed like they would be few and far between. The Chairman thought that the hours of operation should be amended to 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with pick ups and drop offs on either end. Timothy Crowell stated that he had been unsure what he should propose for hours. The Chairman replied that the Board most wanted to know what the applicant thought were his likely hours of operation so that he did not risk being non-compliant once his business was up and running. Don Duhaime added that the applicant might want to consider a half day of operation on Saturdays also. Tim Crowell replied that he did not wish to do that as he did not like to work on the weekends. The Chairman explained that it was a suggestion for the applicant’s option of wanting expanded hours in the future.
Don Duhaime thought that the two client parking spaces proposed in front of the garage doors to the shop did not seem to be an optimum location and that the applicant might prefer to locate these spaces off to the side near the shed noted on the plan. Tim Crowell replied that he put the spaces in front of the garage doors as he knew he had to show them somewhere and because there was a floodlight over the doors. The Chairman thought that this may be where they needed to go to best service clients. Timothy Crowell mentioned that he was having difficulty finding an appropriate parking sign that just said “Parking”. Christine Quirk replied that she had catalogues of signs at her campground business that Mr. Crowell could look through if he wished.
Tim Crowell asked what needed to be in place before the Board site walked the property. The Chairman explained that if the plan were approved the applicant would need to have everything in place that was on the plan before the compliance site walk. Christine Quirk added that the applicant could always make a parking sign and hang it up until one that he might have on order came in. The Chairman asked if the details regarding the specifications for the spray booth for the business should be left up to the State and Fire Marshal. Don Duhaime thought that was appropriate. The Chairman noted that any air treatment system for the business that the Board might require would need to be approved by the State anyway. Don Duhaime asked if the air treatment system
was required to be tested by the State each year. Tim Crowell replied that it was not and that the filters needed to be changed monthly otherwise volume was disrupted. The Chairman clarified that the system was self regulating because of this.
A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, April 14, 2007, at 9:45 a.m. +/-.
Christine Quirk MOVED to adjourn the application of Timothy and Tracy Crowell, NRSPR, Auto Restoration Home Business, Location: 456 Chestnut Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #15/29-9, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to May 22, 2007, at 8:00 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
HEAFIELD, CRAIG
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Stump/Wood Recycling and Log Yard
Location: River Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/16 & 22
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” & Commercial “Com” Districts
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Alden Beauchemin of Keyland Enterprises, Dick Wood, Wood Engineering and the applicant Craig Heafield. Interested parties present were Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission and Jay Marden.
Alden Beauchemin noted the site on the plan and stated that the applicant proposed to use an existing graveled access to the log and stumping area. He added that the Lot #6/22 totaled 131 acres with a second lot #6/16 of 16 acres. Alden Beauchemin stated that the area of disturbance straddled the two lots and that while the applicant would be removing a small hill on site and grading it off he would stay out of the wetlands. He noted a shaded area of disturbance on the plan which was proposed for the stump area and added that the applicant would prefer to use wood chips from the logging operation in place of silt fencing. Alden Beauchemin noted that the applicant had approached the ZBA for a use variance on the property. Craig Heafield then submitted photos to
the Board of an existing logging operation located in Allenstown, NH, that was interested in operating on the site. Alden Beauchemin noted that this type of operation was wholesale hence the parking requirements were not applicable as there would be no retail sales from the site which was noted on the cover sheet of the plan (note #4: “The purpose of this plan is to develop a site for stump recycling and log storage yard without buildings or retail sales”). He added that one or two men would handle the majority of the workload. Don Duhaime asked if bark mulch would be produced on site. Craig Heafield replied that the chips would be ground and hauled offsite where they were usually ground again and dyed to produce mulch. The Chairman asked if there would be any retail sales of mulch from the operation. Craig Heafield replied that there would not be. Alden Beauchemin added that the applicant owned Riverside Sand and Gravel
and this proposal would complement his business. Stu Lewin asked if the notes discussed were binding to the plan. The Chairman replied that they were.
Christine Quirk MOVED to accept the application of Craig Heafield, NRSPR, Stump/ Wood Recycling and Log Yard, Location: River Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/16 & 22, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” & Commercial “Com” Districts, as complete. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Stu Lewin asked if equipment traffic to and from the site was likely to come from both directions on NH Route 13 or if there would be a greater percentage from one direction. Craig Heafield replied that the majority of the traffic flow would travel to and from Goffstown, NH, as large trucks looked for highway access from that direction. Alden Beauchemin noted that gravel had been trucked out of the applicant’s site for many years. Craig Heafield clarified that the proposed business would use log and chip trailers.
Don Duhaime asked if the applicant had approached the State with his proposal. Alden Beauchemin replied that the applicant’s permits from the State were existing for his current operation and all their approvals were marked and covered for the type of use he was proposing. Don Duhaime asked if the existing Driveway Permit from the State accounted for the increases in trucks to the proposed added use. Craig Heafield replied that he was willing to widen his driveway entrance to accommodate the longer trailers if necessary. Alden Beauchemin added that they would check with the State regarding this.
Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, asked what the distance was from the proposed area of operation and the wetlands. Alden Beauchemin noted a small forested area on the plan and added that there would be a 25’ buffer from the wetlands. Cyndie Wilson asked if that buffer fit with the Wetlands Ordinance. The Coordinator explained to the applicant that this was a recently passed Ordinance. Alden Beauchemin asked if this would apply to an existing disturbed site. The Coordinator noted that the site may be grandfathered. The Chairman stated that this could be looked into on the site walk.
Jay Marden wished to clarify that the ZBA had approved a variance for the special exception at the western end of the site. Craig Heafield replied that was correct. Jay Marden asked if there was any screening of the current operation from NH Route 13 now. Alden Beauchemin replied that there was an existing tree buffer. Craig Heafield noted that there was an 8’ gravel berm, therefore, the logging storage could only be seen from the driveway opening. Jay Marden stated that during the winter months more of the logging storage was visible and he was concerned that with the added business it would be visible from NH Route 13. Craig Heafield replied that it would be visible from the entrance point but if it was determined that there was enough room in the
back of the site for storage then he would prefer to use that instead. Jay Marden asked if Craig Heafield would be operating the proposed business himself. Craig Heafield replied that he was not planning on doing so.
A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, April 14, 2007, at 10:15 a.m.+/-
Christine Quirk MOVED to adjourn the application of Craig Heafield, NRSPR, Stump/ Wood Recycling and Log Yard, Location: River Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/16 & 22, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” & Commercial “Com” District, to May 22, 2007, at 8:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Christine Quirk and Barry Charrest recused themselves from the Board as their hearing was up next.
QUIRK, THOMAS & CHRISTINE
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision/NRSPR/40 Camp Sites
Location: Cochran Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/11
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicant Christine Quirk and her sons Barry and Wayne Charrest. An abutter present was Gerard Beloin.
The Chairman noted that the application and plans had been approved September 28, 2004 with a deadline for the Conditions Subsequent of December 1, 2007. Don Duhaime stated that when he viewed the site for compliance he had notice a couple of disturbed areas with one being an area where the grass did not seem to be growing well with too much hay overlay. He thought more seeding might be required. Christine Quirk replied that the grass had grown well there last year and that it may be the time of year the site was being viewed that made it look inferior. Don Duhaime stated that the second area he noticed was a clogged culvert that lead to a check dam and wetlands on the other side of the road. Wayne Charrest replied that there was no water collecting at that
point. Don Duhaime stated that the culvert in question was greater than half full of water. Barry Charrest noted that while there may be an ice build up in the culvert from the recent inconsistent weather temperatures there was normally no water draining through that pipe. The Chairman added that since the anticipated use of the site was for tent sites it was a logical assumption that if there were weather problems causing the culvert to fill it would be at a time when campers would not want to be renting sites anyway. Christine Quirk agreed that when heavy rains occurred tenters left the campground. Don Duhaime noted that the water was not even running down to the far end of the road where it was supposed to go probably because of frozen runoff or shallow points near the culvert. The Chairman stated that if the drainage system were to cease to operate efficiently it would be when the ground was frozen which was not a non-rental time of year for
campers. Christine Quirk noted that the road on which the culvert drained from had been in place for one and a half years and there had been no problems with drainage. Barry Charrest added that there was access out both ends of the road also. Don Duhaime clarified that the area in question may need just a little grading to prevent runoff from ponding in the wrong spots. A map of the site was then put up on the board.
Abutter Gerard Beloin asked the location of Cochran Hill Road on the site map. Christine Quirk noted its location. Gerard Beloin stated that he had no issues with the site and was curious because of the wording attached to the hearing of “Major Subdivision”. The Chairman explained that the subdivision was for tent sites only not house lots. Gerard Beloin added that the stump dump initiated by the Quirks to deter all terrain vehicles from crossing onto his property from the camp site had worked well. Christine Quirk noted that they allowed golf carts only on their property and the all terrain vehicles most likely were trespassing across the campground site.
Stu Lewin stated that he had noticed the same issues as Don Duhaime when he viewed the site for compliance. The Chairman asked Stu Lewin if he noticed any erosion. Stu Lewin replied that he had not. Christine Quirk submitted a revised site plan for 42 sites to incorporate 2 of the four floating sites.
Don Duhaime MOVED to confirm that Thomas and Christine Quirk have complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the subdivision and site plan to install 40 new tent sites and to locate the additional two floating tent sites on their property at the Friendly Beaver Campground on Cochran Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/11, and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be June 30, 2007, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action from the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Christine Quirk and Barry Charrest reclaimed their seats on the Board.
SEFF ENTERPRISES & HOLDINGS, LLC
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision/19 Lots
Location: Foxberry Drive
Tax Map/Lot # 8/84
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman stated that the applicant had successfully blocked the entrances to the driveways under construction by increasing the density of a sand pile and placing an additional boulder at a gap point. Stu Lewin asked if the compliance was sought by the applicant so that the road could be maintained by the Town even though none of the house lots had been completed. The Chairman replied that was correct and even though the homes on the lots were not finished all safety improvements for the road were completed which was the applicant was required to do. Stu Lewin asked how this compliance differed from another applicant’s, R.J. Moreau. The Chairman replied that in that case there was work required on the side slopes of the road which delayed its compliance. Stu Lewin asked what the case would be if construction trucks damage the road when they were traveling to the house lots. The Chairman replied that the construction company would be accountable for fixing the
damage done. He added that there was a two year maintenance bond on the road. The Chairman asked if the bond had been submitted. The Coordinator replied that it had not. The Chairman noted that its submittal could be part of the conditions precedent of the compliance approval.
Don Duhaime MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of Seff Enterprises & Holdings, LLC Major Subdivision of 19 lots on Tax Map/Lot #’s 8/84, Foxberry Drive, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of financial security in the amount of $23,459.00, and in a form
acceptable to the Planning Board which will be retained for two years as a
maintenance security. Said security may require review by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MOREAU, ROBERT & MARGORIE
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road
Tax Map/Lot #295
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Mike Carter of Todd Land Use Consultants and the applicants Robert and Margorie Moreau. Abutters present were Patty Rice and Jason Wenzel. An interested party present was Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission.
Mike Carter stated that the applicant proposed to subdivide a 5.612 acre lot into two lots with one lot having the existing house and totaling 2.328 acres with 228.53’ of frontage and the other lot being 3.284 acres with 185.9’ of frontage. He noted that both lots would accommodate a 200’ X 200’ square. Mike Carter noted that the new proposed lot was almost the same acreage as what was added to the parent lot in 2001 as a lot line adjustment and that the applicant was looking to subdivide the parcel by what was adjusted 6 years prior. He stated that the Steep Slopes were represented in orange on the plan and noted a thin corridor of wetlands at the back of the site. Mike Carter stated that there was an existing stonewall that followed a tree
line and forest buffer, therefore, the applicant requested a waiver to the requirement for a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. He added that the soils were Canton, fine sandy loam, Group 2 which was good for septic systems. Mike Carter stated that the proposed new lot would be serviced by a common driveway which split early at a gap in an existing stonewall, therefore, it did not have the issues of many common drives where the split occurred after an extended distance. He added that the hatched pattern on the plan represented a no-cut easement that was prepared with the 2001 lot line adjustment and configured so that none of the proposed northerly lot would be encumbered by that easement. The Chairman asked where the site was located. Mike Carter replied that it was just past Dodge Farm on the opposite side of NH Route 77 where an existing wetland meadow could be seen. Patty Rice noted that it was after the “S” curves on NH
Route 77 past the Dodge Farm. The Chairman asked if this was in the location of the cell tower. Robert Moreau replied that it was across the street and down a bit. Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, inquired about the distance of the no-cut easement from the wetlands. Mike Carter replied that it was a 50’ scenic easement.
The Chairman stated that he had no issues with the waivers requested for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Soils Maps and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies.
Don Duhaime MOVED to grant the waivers requested in a letter by Bob Todd Land Use Consultants dated May 9, 2006. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Don Duhaime MOVED to accept the application of Robert F. and Margorie Moreau, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots. Location: NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot
#2/95, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Abutter Patty Rice requested that she be noticed when the site walk was scheduled as she would like to be present to ask questions concerning the site’s driveway. The Chairman stated that the Board was inclined not to schedule a site walk for this application. Mike Carter explained that Patty Rice’s question regarded arrangements around the shared driveway and he would look into this for Ms. Rice.
Cyndie Wilson stated that at the Conservation Commission’s meeting last week they discussed this application and wanted her to request at tonight’s hearing that the wetlands be marked so that the owner of the new lot would know where the 50’ setbacks were. She noted that in light of information presented this evening a no-cut easement marker might be a more appropriate request. Mike Carter understood that this request involved the placement of a permanent marker for the easement. He wished to clarify that if no site walk was to be held for the application should he still stake the driveway. The Chairman asked if the driveway was existing. Mike Carter replied that it was and noted the curb cut on the plan. He added that the new portion
would be the proposed split off the existing driveway at the stonewall. The Chairman stated that since the driveway was off a State road the State was likely to handle the permitting. Patty Rice clarified that she should address any questions she had regarding the driveway to the State. The Chairman replied that was correct.
Christine Quirk MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #2/95, Robert and Margorie Moreau, N.H. Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, 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 noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD;
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be June 14, 2007, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action from the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
BARSS, KENNETH R. JR. & LORI A.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/CUP
To Erect a Structure within the Wetlands and Stream Corridor Conservation District
Location: 501 Mont Vernon Road
Tax Map/Lot #14/90
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant Kenneth Barss, Jr. An interested party present was Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission.
The Chairman stated that the applicant had to make corrections to abutters’ names and addresses and had to recalculate the proposed building’s lot coverage. He added that a site walk was warranted. Stu Lewin asked if this was the application that had required its own new form for a CUP based on the recent Town acceptance of the Wetlands Ordinance. The Coordinator replied that it was. The Chairman clarified that this site used to be a Commercial lot with a store (structure still existing on the lot) and had been voted back to Residential-Agricultural by the Town after being petitioned by the owner.
The Chairman then read the criteria from the Application for Conditional Use Permit for Non-Conforming Lots:
a. “The lot for which the Conditional Use Permit is sought is an official lot of record, as recorded in the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds, prior to the date on which this amendment was posted and published in the Town. (December 8, 2006)”
The Chairman stated that the above criteria seemed to satisfied. This was due to the applicant’s written response on the form which stated that a recorded lot line adjustment and revised lot line adjustment dated 2/14/95 and 5/18/95, respectively, were filed.
b. “The use for which the Conditional Use Permit is sought cannot feasibly be carried out on a portion or portions of the lot which are outside the Wetlands and Stream Corridor Conservation District”.
The Chairman stated that the applicant had noted that due to the irregular flow pattern of the stream on site there was no area on the lot where all the required setbacks could be met. Ken Barss stated that the brook was approximately 75’ off the road and there was another wet area beyond the proposed house site.
c. “Due to the provisions of the Wetlands and Stream Corridor Conservation District, no reasonable and economically viable use of the lot can be made without the Conditional Use Permit”.
The Chairman asked if there was a house on the lot now. Ken Barss replied that there was a single-wide mobile home on the lot currently which was located 8’ from the brook on site. The Chairman asked how far the mobile home was from the State’s right-of-way (NH Route 13). Ken Barss replied that there were other buildings on the site between the mobile home and NH Route 13 and that there was 15’ between the road and the front of the old store on site with another structure and the mobile home behind it. The Chairman then gave a brief explanation of the location of the site for new Board member Stu Lewin. He noted that the applicant proposed to locate a double-wide trailer on the other side of the brook on site from where the existing mobile
home was located and have the existing mobile home removed. Ken Barss noted that the septic system was located behind the existing mobile home. Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, asked where the applicant proposed the new mobile home. Ken Barss displayed the revised plan and explained that the existing trailer, septic and well would be removed. The Chairman asked if the old store on site would be removed. Ken Barss replied that it would not as he used it for storage. The Chairman explained that the proposed double wide mobile home was larger than the existing mobile home and encroached into the 50’ buffer area at the rear of the site near the wetlands. Ken Barss noted that he had initially spoken with the Building Inspector in November, 2006, about getting a Building Permit but when the Wetlands Ordinance was posted soon after that he had to honor it and informed him that he would need to apply for a CUP.
The Chairman noted that because a slab would be poured instead of a foundation being dug there would not be wetland disturbance. Cyndie Wilson noted that there would still be some digging required to place the slab and that for another application it was stipulated that no heavy equipment be on site until a siltation fence was installed. She added that this application had caught her off guard because the Conservation Commission did not have an updated plan. Therefore, the applicant’s proposal was not known or discussed by the Commission. Cyndie Wilson felt that site walk was needed and if it happened to be scheduled for the upcoming Saturday, April 14, 2007, she would not be able to attend but could possibly have another Conservation Commission member go. She
added that she had been under the impression that the new structure proposed would be located on the road side of the brook not the back side. Ken Barss noted that the structure did not meet setback requirements for either side of the brook but that the proposal made the scenario better than it was now as he would gain 50’ on the front and 35’ to 40’ of setback in the rear.
The Chairman then read the next criteria from the Application for Conditional Use Permit for Non-Conforming Lots:
d. “The design and construction of the proposed use will, to the extent practical, be consistent with the purpose and intent of Section 204.6 of the Town of New Boston Zoning Ordinance”.
The Chairman felt that the proposal would be an improvement and met the intent of Section 204.6. Cyndie Wilson asked what the applicant would be using for a septic system. Ken Barss replied that he had an approved septic design that met the 75’ requirements from wetlands and was an enviro-system. The Chairman noted that the only part of the proposal that would encroach into the setback would be part of the mobile home’s slab.
e. “The proposed use will not create a hazard to individual or public health, safety and welfare due to the loss of wetland, and contamination of groundwater, or other reason”.
The Chairman stated that there would be an increase to public health because the septic would be moved further from the wetlands. He felt that all the criteria were satisfied. Christine Quirk agreed. The Chairman asked if the site was flagged. Ken Barss replied that it was not but he could have this prepared. The Chairman noted that Cyndie Wilson had brought up a good point in that it would be important to have the flagging prepared for site work so that disturbance of the wetland was avoided. Cyndie Wilson stated that because of the narrow corridor of wetlands on site it should be properly flagged so that it could be easily discernable by a heavy equipment operator. She added that hay bales and/or siltation fence may be desired also. The
Chairman replied that this was dictated by best building practices and could be made a requirement of approval.
Ken Barss stated that way he had the plan designed was to construct a stonewall on the bank of the brook and fill to that versus putting up hay bales. Cyndie Wilson asked if this would be done within 50’ of the brook. Ken Barss replied that it would be. Cyndie Wilson noted that a wetland permit may be required for that proposal on its own. The Chairman added that this item may be the most problematic issue. Ken Barss noted that he would be applying for a wetland crossing to cross the wetland but for now could use an existing stone bridge on site and later have the proper sized culvert installed on the proposed crossing. Cyndie Wilson explained that the applicant would need to get the proper application front the Town Clerk who would then forward it
to the Conservation Commission. She returned to the subject of the stonewall. Ken Barss explained that the stonewall he proposed would not be tall for the safety of his grandchildren and would resemble a 4’ wide pile of rocks toward the stream. Cyndie Wilson noted that this proposal could qualify as filling in the wetlands but she could not be sure until a site walk was held. The Chairman agreed but noted that this had nothing to do with the setting of the proposed mobile home structure. Cyndie Wilson noted that a 50’ setback ordinance existed and the stonewall proposed was not necessary to install the mobile home. Ken Barss replied that he was trying to create some type of yard for safety purposes. He noted that he would be removing some trees to set the house and would need to do some filling to cover over the stumps and grade for the driveway. Cyndie Wilson stated that a site walk was necessary. The Chairman
stated that the only remaining issue was the proposed stonewall proposed near the wetlands as it could raise water levels in the protected zones. Ken Barss thought that the wall would protect the brook from runoff versus flattening an existing knob where the slab would set. The Chairman saw the applicant’s point as it would allow saturation versus runoff. Cyndie Wilson asked how far away from the brook the applicant wished to construct the stonewall. Ken Barss replied that it would not be far and that he would like to create a sluiceway following the contours of the brook while protecting some existing maples trees that were along it. The Chairman clarified that at times of high water flow the stonewall could make contact with the brook. Ken Barss replied that could happen as it did with an existing stonewall on site. Cyndie Wilson stated that she appreciated the applicant’s concern for the runoff issue and thought that as long
as Ken Barss kept the wall on a flat area instead of on a downhill slope to the brook the State would not think that he was in the wetland area. The Chairman asked that the applicant have the site marked and hay baled for a site walk which was then scheduled for May 19, 2007, at 8:30 a.m.
The Coordinator asked if bonding was required of the applicant. The Chairman replied that the wetland crossing was not on the radar at this time and the pending application was not impacting any wetlands, therefore, no bonding would be required at this time.
Don Duhaime MOVED to adjourn the application of Kenneth R. Barss, Jr., and Lori A. Barss, CUP, To Erect a Structure within the Wetlands and Stream Corridor Conservation District, Location: 501 Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/90, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, to May 22, 2007, at 9:00 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2007
12. Driveway Permit for Doris Leedham, Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/6, for the Board’s approval.
Elliot Konner, agent for Doris Leedham, was present for this item. The Chairman stated that the Coordinator had been researching the lot’s viability and asked what the status was. The Coordinator replied that she had not been present at the Selectmen’s meeting when this item was discussed and that something was also forthcoming from Doris Leedham’s attorney. She asked if Christine Quirk had any updates. Elliot Konner stated that he had been under the impression that the Selectmen had opted to have the Coordinator continue her research on this issue. He added that he had a letter from Jed Callen, Esq., which had been forwarded to the Building Department and Selectman Dave Woodbury which referenced the petition to quiet the title to Doris
Leedham and state that the lot in question had been a separate parcel since 1848 which predated Zoning. Elliot Konner noted that given this information his client was looking for a Driveway Permit to access the property. The Chairman asked the size of the lot. Elliot Konner replied that it was 0.21 acres. Stu Lewin asked if Doris Leedham planned to construct a house on the lot. Elliot Konner replied that they were beginning with a Driveway Permit and the State’s Septic Approval. Christine Quirk asked if a one bedroom home was planned. Elliot Konner replied that a two bedroom home was being considered.
Christine Quirk stated that she did not recall the information presented to the Selectmen and would need to go back to them for clarification before having an opinion. Elliot Konner stated that whether or not the lot was deemed buildable it was entitled to a curb cut. The Coordinator stated that the only question in her mind based on her research was why the 0.21 acre lot had been attached to the Leedham’s other land across the street on the 1991 tax maps when it had been shown as a separate lot prior to that date. She noted that if something legal had been done at that time it may not be a separate lot now. The Coordinator further noted that even if the lot was smaller that what Zoning allowed if it was found to already be a lot of record the owner was
entitled to build on it but would need to approach the ZBA for a waiver to the setback
requirements. She further noted that in 1979 there were some instances in Town with confusion regarding whether lots on two sides of a road should be listed as one lot or more. Elliot Konner noted that his client’s parcel was a recorded lot and asked if the subdivision plan from 1979 had been recorded. The Coordinator replied that she had not been able to find that information, however, the Planning Board minutes taken at the time of the lot’s subdivision approval did show that. She added that the Selectmen had not yet had a chance to review Jed Callen, Esq.’s, recent letter at one of their meetings. Christine Quirk noted that the letter was dated April 6, 2007, therefore, the Selectmen had not had a meeting since it was drafted.
Elliot Konner stated that a more confusing issue than the lot’s viability was its ownership because in 1848 it had been deeded to either Clara Shed or Nathan Hall. He added that at some point in the 1920’s it was left as part of an estate of descendants of the Hall family whose heirs lived in Massachusetts. Elliot Konner explained that along the line of descendants the rights to ownership became lost. He added that Mr. Leedham worked for a surveyor by the name of Walter O’Neil and they had researched this lot understanding that the Town had no rights to take the land as they did not know who to notice, therefore, Mr. Leedham began an adverse possession claim. Elliot Konner further added that there was a statement of record that Mr. Leedham had been
using the property openly since June 5, 1961, however, ownership was not awarded to him until November, 2001. He noted that any approval of a subdivision plan prior to that date would have been improper. Elliot Konner stated that this was an existing lot and Doris Leedham sought a Driveway Permit. He added that she had been paying taxes on the property since ownership was awarded.
The Chairman stated that the Selectmen’s next meeting was Monday, April 16, 2007, at which time they could discuss this matter. Elliot Konner questioned why he could not get an approved Driveway Permit this evening. The Coordinator explained that the Selectmen would consider Jed Callen, Esq.’s, letter dated April 6, 2007, at their next meeting to determine the lot’s viability. Elliot Konner noted that the lot was shown on two different Tax maps connected to two different parcels but that it had its own Map and Lot number before the 1977 Tax Maps. The Chairman thought that the case was a good one but that the Selectmen, procedurally, needed to confirm the information and if so, a Driveway Permit could be issued and Mr. Elliot could then approach the
ZBA for a setback waiver.
1. Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for SHB Properties, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #12/65, Pulpit & Bedford Roads, by the Planning Board Chairman.
Because of multiple signature sheets the Chairman opted to sign the above noted Subdivision Agreement at the end of the meeting.
2. Discussion, re: Stormwater Management Plan language.
The Chairman asked if the Coordinator wanted discussion on new parts added to the language on the basis of clarification, workability or if there were issues surrounding the additions. The Coordinator replied that the main topics she saw were the bonding issue and timing, and that she had added definitions for clarification of sections within the Stormwater Management Plan and confusion between Stormwater Management Plans required for more than a three lot subdivision versus ones for individual lots. She added that there was also some confusion over pre-engineered Stormwater Management Plans being done for subdivisions that did not yet know the placement of the houses on the proposed lots. The Coordinator noted that a major change involved bonding at the time of the
Building Permit being secured with the requirement that if the bond exceeded two years it would need to be reworked to reflect current numbers.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she had any issues with the language wording. The Coordinator replied that except for the highlighted areas she had suggested the wording additions, therefore, she had no issues. Don Duhaime asked if the Town Engineer was the represented engineer referred to in the language. The Coordinator explained that the only time the Town Engineer would become involved in a Stormwater Management Plan would be when one was required for the construction of a road. She added that the language referred to the consulting engineer for a subdivision. Don Duhaime recalled that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, of Sandford Survey and Engineering had once mentioned that many engineers could become involved at different times for the same plan and
wondered if this would become an issue. The Coordinator replied that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, was alluding to the fact that over the course of a plan’s approval process it would not be unrealistic to consider that the engineer who may do a pre-engineered Stormwater Management Plan for a plan might not be the same engineer who worked on the plan during its process or at the compliance end. Don Duhaime asked if one engineer could stamp a previous engineer’s work on a plan. The Coordinator stated that the most likely event was that the engineer doing the review of a plan also designed it, however, this could not be relied 100% of the time. She added that an adherence statement said that what was done on a design was according to the plan and that the site was verifiably stabilized.
The Coordinator stated that the next step in the process was to schedule a public hearing.
3. A copy of an email received April 3, 2007, from Donald Grosso, to Michele Brown, New Boston Planning Board Assistant, re: New Boston Post Office, site plan expansion, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that currently the area encasing the dumpster faced the Post Office building but if the encasement was turned to allow for the expansion which was being considered then the dumpster would become more visible and unsightly. The Chairman asked if there would be a gate on the enclosure for the dumpster. The Coordinator replied that this had not been specified, only that stockade fencing would be used. The Chairman thought that if the enclosure was angled to the southwest as proposed then it should have a gate on it so that the dumpster would not be visible to the patrons of the nearby business, New Boston Pizza.
4. A copy of a letter received April 3, 2007, from Douglas Hill, Douglas Hill Construction, LLC, to the New Boston Planning Board, re: Construction Monitoring Estimate-Christian Farm Estates, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that because the Board was expecting a detailed clarification from the Town Engineer regarding their monitoring estimate this item could be discussed at the next meeting.
5. A copy of a letter received March 7, 2007, from Christine Quirk, Friendly Beaver Campground, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, New Boston Planning Board, re: 40 Site Expansion, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that this item was addressed at the Compliance Hearing for the Quirks earlier in the evening.
6. A copy of a letter received March 7, 2007, from Christine Quirk, Friendly Beaver Campground, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, New Boston Planning Board, re: request for extension on Conditions Subsequent, for the Board’s action.
The Chairman asked how much time the Quirks would like for an extension. Christine Quirk replied that they would be pouring the slab for the structure approved as soon as the weight posting was taken off the roads and were asking for a one year extension.
Don Duhaime MOVED to extend the Conditions Subsequent for Friendly Beaver Campground to June 28, 2008. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
7a. A copy of a memorandum dated March 29, 2007, from Ed Hunter, New Boston Building & Code Enforcement Official, to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, New Boston Planning Board, re: R&R Realty Trust, Trust, Tax Map/Lot # 3/66, North Mast Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman asked if there was a deadline involved regarding the Building Inspector’s findings. The Coordinator replied that there was not.
7b. A copy of a letter dated March 29, 2007, from Ed Hunter, New Boston Building & Code Enforcement Official, to Richard Renshaw, re: 662 North Mast Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
8. A copy of a memorandum dated March 29, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to all Meeting Attendees, re: SHB Properties, LLC Subdivision, Pre-Construction Meeting
Minutes, was distributed for the Board’s information.
9. A copy of Developments of Regional Impact review Guidelines for SNHPC Region, October 25, 2005, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that this item tied in with item #11 (below) and was a topic for consideration by the Board which could be presented at a public hearing. She added that she could contact Jack Munn, SNHPC, to better clarify the correct way to bring about such process.
11. Discussion, re: possible regional impact of development of the end of Bedford Road.
10. Read File: Copy of an article from New Hampshire Union Leader, Thursday, March 22, 2007, 4-town scenic byway plan gets mixed reaction.
13. The minutes of March 27, 2007, were noted to have been distributed via email, for approval at the meeting of April 24, 2007, with or without changes.
The Chairman stated that he much preferred the distribution of the meeting minutes by email.
14. A memo dated April 9, 2007, from the Planning Coordinator, re: Planning Board procedures was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion at the meeting of April 24, 2007.
Stu Lewin asked if the discussion date for Planning Board procedures could be moved to the May 8, 2007, meeting, since he could not be present at the April 24th meeting and would benefit from this information, being a new member to the Board. The Coordinator replied that this could be done.
15. Motion to approve the Notice of Merger for Martha Savoy, Tax Map/Lot #10/70, 10/71 & 10/72, Lyndeborough Road, by the Board.
The Coordinator explained that discussion on this Merger was held at the last meeting and the appropriate documents had been signed, however, a motion for the approval was never made by the Board which she would have reminded them to do had she not had to leave that meeting early.
Christine Quirk MOVED to approve the Notice of Merger for Martha Savoy, Tax Map/Lot # 10/70, 10/71 & 10/72, Lyndeborough Road. Don Duhaime seconded the
motion and it PASSED unanimously.
16. A copy of a letter dated April 4, 2007, from Dwight Sowerby of Drescher & Dokmo, re: review of SHB Properties, LLC’s letter of Credit for Tax Map/Lot #12/65, Pulpit and Bedford Roads, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator explained that this motion would be to approve the release of the above noted letter to the applicant in order that they could make the appropriate changes suggested in it. She noted that the same was true for the next item #17.
Don Duhaime MOVED to release the letter by Dwight Sowerby of Drescher & Dokmo dated April 4, 2007, re: review of SHB Properties, LLC’s letter of Credit for Tax Map/Lot #12/65, Pulpit and Bedford Roads, to the applicant. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
17. A copy of a letter dated March 29, 2007, from Dwight Sowerby of Drescher & Dokmo, re: review of Albert LaChance documents for Tax Map/Lot #2/112-2, Middle Branch, Weare and Lull Roads, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Don Duhaime MOVED to release the letter by Dwight Sowerby of Drescher & Dokmo dated April 4, 2007, re: review of Albert LaChance documents for Tax Map/Lot #12/112-2, Middle Branch, Weare and Lull Roads, to the applicant. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman endorsed the Subdivision Agreement for SHB Properties, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #12/65, Pulpit & Bedford Roads and the Site Plans for the Friendly Beaver Campground.
At 11:00 p.m. Christine Quirk MOVED to adjourn. Stu Lewin seconded the
motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien, Minutes Approved:
Recording Clerk
| 
