TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of 2007 Meetings
May 22, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime, Stu Lewin and; ex-officio Christine Quirk and alternate, Jeffrey St. John. 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 Jack Munn, SNHPC, Brian Dorwart, Lisa Jeck, Timothy and Tracy Crowell, Craig Heafield, Alden Beauchemin, Dick Wood, Bob Todd, LLS, Kenneth Barss, Jr., Katie and Chad Napierkoski, Linden and Dan Hodgkins, Scott Neeson, Burr Tupper, Laura Todd and Joan MacDonald.
Discussion with Jack Munn, Senior Planner, SNHPC, re: next steps for future planning by the Planning Board.
Jack Munn, SNHPC, was present for this discussion. An interested party was Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission.
Jack Munn asked if the Board would also like to discuss backlot Zoning. The Chairman replied that they would. Jack Munn stated that he had prepared a memo for this evening’s discussion and understood that the Board would like to move forward in considering 4 new Zoning Districts: Small Scale Commercial, Open Space, a new Residential District and a new Agricultural District which were recommendations and suggestions that came from the Master Plan update. He noted that the Coordinator had asked that he look at the best approach to do this and he suggested 2 subcommittees as was done in the fall of 2006 with the Wetlands subcommittee and the Open Space committee. Jack Munn stated that he thought that 6 to 8 appointed members representing a good cross section of
the community would be appropriate for each committee and if they could begin working this July with a September end deadline then proposed ordinances could be ready in October/November for public hearings in December. He added that SNHPC could provide an overseer (himself) at approximately 40-50 hours and a staff planner to attend the subcommittee meetings plus do background work at 90-100 hours which would work out to approximately $6K from the Town’s remaining $9K contract balance.
The Chairman asked what would be planned for the suggested Open Space and Agricultural Districts. Jack Munn replied that Open Space would depend on a primary focus but ultimately the Town would be looking at things like the Tracking Station and other areas of sensitivity that might benefit from an overlay. He added that the focus could also shift to transfer of development rights and credits to get higher density in certain parts of Town. The Chairman asked if such an overlay were on someone’s property it would be mandatory that it remain, for example, open space. Jack Munn replied that it would not and noted that it would be important to balance owners’ rights while considering where the Town wanted to have growth.
Don Duhaime asked if a better explanation of the purpose of overlay districts could be discussed as he felt that they seemed to force owners to do specific things with their land. Jack Munn replied that it supported things like higher densities in certain areas while protecting others. The Coordinator noted that the current idea of Zoning in the Town was to separate uses so that residential areas were not overcome by commercial areas that they might find disruptive. She added that the current overlay districts were Wetlands and Groundwater Resources which
still allowed whatever their underlying Zoning was but either required or optionally allowed something else to occur over it. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, added that there were a number of parcels in the McCurdy/Bedford Road area that could be linked into a green belt area that would be part of a developer’s conservation easement. The Coordinator noted that the purpose of Zoning allowed a property owner rights to do some things but not everything on their land. She added that in following the Constitutional checklist for Zoning it was up to the Board to make a commitment to valid decisions as to how Zoning would be used. Stu Lewin asked why overlays would be proposed versus changing a property’s current Zoning. Douglas Hill replied that overlays allowed for more options on land. He noted that density trade offs would be necessary with developers if Open Space was desired in certain areas. Don Duhaime was concerned that overlay districts were more likely to benefit
developers instead of the Town. Jack Munn noted that reasonably managed Open Space needed to be considered and many other towns were coming around to the idea that they liked Open Space communities as the Master Plan suggested. The Coordinator noted that the Master Plan had recommended replacing the Residential-Agricultural District with a Residential-Agricultural/Open Space District which was another option to consider.
The Chairman asked Jack Munn his definition of “sprawl” as that term came up in a negative sense many times. Jack Munn replied that sprawl in the fiscal sense was development that cost towns more money as they were spread out with longer roads and less density. The Chairman noted that many people had moved to New Boston for those characteristics. Jack Munn noted that while a rural community was desired for the Town, cookie cutter lots were not and it was a personal as well as a community decision. The Chairman did not think that the contributors to the questionnaire that was mailed to residents during the Master Plan update had a clue as to what the true definition was for sprawl and noted that many would say that it was not a good characteristic while
many residents had moved here for that quality. He added that the contrasting option was cluster design but many people would say that they did not want small acreage lots. The Chairman summarized that he felt the Master Plan contradicted itself with such suggestions. Jack Munn noted that residential sprawl differed from urban sprawl and the bottom line was how the Town wanted to grow. The Chairman thought that Commercial sprawl could decrease residential sprawl by limiting travel times to and from commercial services. He added that he was not suggesting Dunkin Donuts or 7-11 stores in Town. Don Duhaime thought some commercial services that offered local character would be nice to see. Christine Quirk noted that it would be helpful if the Planning Board could be the point of contact on ideas for commercial services as many people were discouraged from doing so in the first place due to the fact that the ZBA was the overseeing factor.
The Chairman thought that it would be beneficial for residents to have other commercial hubs where they could get coffee, etc., rather than one centralized point as was the current situation with traffic ever on the increase and parking limited.
Jack Munn asked if the Board was familiar with the scenic byway which would involve the River Road/Weare/Dunbarton area. He explained that this was a Federally funded option to improve areas with the potential to access federal funds for bike paths, road improvements, signage, economic development and marketing of the community. He noted these would all encourage good traffic and tourism. He mentioned the Scenic Byways Tour scheduled to be in New Boston on May 30, 2007, at 9:45 a.m. The Coordinator expressed surprise as she had been told the tour would be on the 31st and had passed that information on to others. Joan MacDonald stated that she had been involved with the Master Plan update and worked with many strong willed people who supported their
beliefs and concerns. She felt that overlay districts could become restrictive and the issue was that strong willed people with their own agendas would be on upcoming subcommittees and could impose these ideas and not focus on other true concerns of the town such as traffic, etc. versus sprawl and development options. The Chairman asked Joan MacDonald for her description of sprawl and what the concerns of the Town were without considering sprawl. Joan MacDonald replied that she did not have a strong opinion on sprawl but thought the Master Plan focused too much on open space, cluster development and smart growth. She added that an overlay district of Open Space may force more density which people may not want. Joan MacDonald noted that because of apathy among residents the only people that came to the subcommittee meetings she spoke of were those with very strong opinions. The Chairman stated that sprawl lots coincidentally often created open
space areas by the connection of backyards close together and accomplished the same thing without a regulation being put in place. He added that the problem arose when subdividers did not have the foresight to plan out what type of open space they were offering. The Coordinator noted that without a change to Zoning there was no way to correct the design problems that the Board opposed with regard to density, etc. Jack Munn noted that the neighboring town of Weare had seen a lot of cookie cutter lots and had recently gone to a 5 acre minimum lot size to help protect rural parts of the community. Douglas Hill stated that this contradicted the idea of affordable housing. The Chairman noted that such contradictions were the frustrating aspects the Board dealt with. Brian Dorwart, Road Committee, felt that sprawl was a long line of incremental development without oversight planning in the overall scheme of things. He added that development had
to be coordinated in a regional plan or there would be sprawl. Brian Dorwart clarified that it was the inefficient use of land as it related to infrastructure. Douglas Hill stated that property rights were involved in how much could be done. Brian Dorwart stated that for community improvement property rights could be taken. The Chairman asked what Brian Dorwart would suggest for the McCurdy/Bedford Road area and Indian Falls with its proposed multi development plans. Brian Dorwart replied that without overlays in place the developers’ only interest was in turning a profit for lots but with them a community flavor honored by developers such as fields, trails or additional road connections a better sense of community among neighborhoods would be offered.
Jack Munn noted that it would be beneficial for Planning Board members to sit on the subcommittees they had been discussing to better guide their efforts. He added that he had reviewed an interesting spreadsheet compiled by the Coordinator that showed only 35 acres of open space within the 8 subdivisions in the Bedford/McCurdy Road area. He added that the Board needed to consider whether this was the character they wanted the Town to have in the future. Burr Tupper stated that although the overlays may not be the best vehicle to accomplish what they wanted to do at least it was a starting point to not having the Town look like Bedford, NH. and the Board had the ability to put something in place like this. Jack Munn added that other changes could be employed like lot
frontages as they drove the spacing for lots and the town did not currently have a frontage requirement. The Coordinator and Douglas Hill noted that the 200’ square at the setback line was the town’s frontage requirement currently. Douglas Hill noted that if frontages were increased more road length would be needed which would impact the Town and went against the idea of open space developments. He also noted that it was difficult to get creative with road design due to the safety features demanded by the Fire Department and Police Department.
Don Duhaime wished to return to the subject of sprawl and asked Brian Dorwart if he considered it to be spaced out subdivisions. Brian Dorwart replied that avoiding sprawl meant tying zoned usage to the next adjacent lot. Don Duhaime asked how the Board could then ask a developer to create a plan on someone else’s property for road access as had been recently discussed with a preliminary applicant. Brian Dorwart replied that legally this could be required because it would be considered for the good of the public much like a “taking” although that was an extreme example. He noted that the point was to have enough different options to tie communities together in character to the one next to it and this could be accomplished in many ways such as with
green belts, community stores, etc, thus not mandating the type of development but the flavor of what is developed. The Chairman asked Jack Munn his thought on proposed developments in the Bedford/McCurdy Road area without a second entrance link to the Klondike Korner area of Bedford road. He explained that this area was easily isolated in high water situations from heavy rain and a second egress would need to be on another property owner’s land, therefore, the developer has stated that this is not a possibility. Jack Munn replied that he could not make a comment on this matter until the Scope of Work to do a comprehensive study looking at traffic issues at that end of Town had been completed. He explained that this study would look at traffic counts and what work to Bedford Road would best benefit the public in terms of capacity, trips and safety. The Chairman stated that the Board needed to give Jack Munn a consensus on what topics they
needed help with. Jack Munn replied that a decision was not necessary this evening but noted that the Board needed to be active participants on any subcommittees they established for the cause. The Chairman agreed. Jack Munn thought that the ideas presented for commercial and residential zoning changes were good ones. The Chairman noted that he wanted to assure that they did not restrict something unnecessarily in considering the overlay districts. Jack Munn replied that the Board’s decisions on this would become a combination of different things but they should start with simple changes such as lot frontages.
Jack Munn stated that he had reviewed the backlot issue and had prepared a memo which was submitted to the Board. He noted that there was a need for backlots which were referred to as “flag lots” elsewhere due to their irregular shape of a flag stem, because of topographies and lot constraints. Don Duhaime thought that backlots manipulated land in order to achieve more lots. Douglas Hill noted that by allowing backlots it regulated road lengths. The Chairman added that backlots were affordable ways to have privacy versus purchasing 20 acres.
JECK, LISA Adjourned from 4/24/07
Public Hearing/NRSPR/Spiritual Growth and Development
Workshop Home Business
Location: 110 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #8/113
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant Lisa Jeck. An interested party present was Burr Tupper.
Lisa Jeck submitted three copies of the revised plan which she said addressed the hours of operation for the proposed business along with driveway distances and the addition of an abutter. She added that the location of an exterior light was changed because it was determined not to be necessary as other existing lights on the site would satisfactorily illuminate the parking area. Lisa Jeck stated that she had written a letter to NHDOT two weeks prior to request a change of scope of the existing Driveway Permit and had also called and left a phone message but was yet to hear back from them on the matter. She noted that she had abided by NHDOT’s request that the site’s driveway have a 20’ width with a culvert under it. The Chairman asked the
applicant if she had any information regarding her septic requirements for the proposed business. Lisa Jeck replied that she had pulled documentation form NHDES regarding system design rules. She noted that with her architect, Dave Ely’s, help they had determined that her existing system allowed 450 gallons per day per person and compared this to the requirements, for example, of a school (with no gym or showers) which required 10 gallons per day per person.
The Chairman asked if there were any other outstanding issues other than the driveway permit. The Coordinator replied that a business sign should be mentioned to NHDOT in terms of what their required setback was. The Chairman stated that it was not part of the Planning Board’s review but wondered if the applicant had heard from the Building Inspector regarding life safety codes. Lisa Jeck replied that she had not. The Chairman asked how the hours of operation had been clarified on the plan which had been discussed at the last meeting. Lisa Jeck replied that she would typically operate the business on Friday evenings and Saturday and Sunday afternoons, therefore, from Friday at 5:00 p.m to Sunday at 5:00 p.m. The Chairman referred to the plan’s
note which said the hours would encompass Friday evenings, Saturdays and Sundays with no more than 4 programs per month. Douglas Hill stated that he had no issues with these hours as the site was not located in a neighborhood setting. Don Duhaime asked if the proposed hours could be interpreted to include overnight clients. Lisa Jeck replied that this would not be possible logistically but understood Don Duhaime’s point and added that she would be happy to address the note to offer more clarification. The Chairman stated he had no problem with the note as written.
Stu Lewin stated that he had no issues with the plan. The Chairman noted that he might have issues if the business was a different type but had none as it was proposed. Stu Lewin asked if the applicant would need to return to the Board if she ever wanted to change the business’s hours or days. The Chairman replied that she would.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the site plan for Lisa Jeck, to operate a spiritual growth
JECK, cont.
and development workshop home business from 1,189 s.f. of the existing dwelling at 110 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/113, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITION(S) PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of three (3) copies of the revised site plan that include all
checklist corrections and any agreed-upon conditions from this hearing;
2. Execution of a Site Review Agreement regarding the condition(s) subsequent;
3. Receipt of a revised Driveway Permit from NH DOT;
The deadline for complying with the condition(s) precedent shall be July 30, 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 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.
CONDITION(S) SUBSEQUENT:
1. All of the site improvements are to be completed per the approved site plan;
2. The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing and the opening of the business on the site;
3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted prior to the compliance hearing;
4. A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have
been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of Permit to Operate or Certificate of Occupancy, or both.
The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be July 30, 2007, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing on same as described in item 4 above.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
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. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Timothy Crowell stated that he had revised the plans to include a statement which said he would comply with all State regulations regarding the operation of the proposed auto restoration business. He noted that he had attached the memo from the Fire Inspector to his plans and had also included on the plan the location of the business sign (in the legend) and the hours of operation which were revised to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays per the Board’s previous suggestion even though he maintained that he would not work most Saturdays. Timothy Crowell added that parking had also been delineated and parking signs were noted.
In reviewing the Fire Inspector’s memo to the applicant the Chairman stated that he thought that the compliance items listed were excessive and not in line with the specifics of the home business code for this proposal. Timothy Crowell noted that one example was a request for fire rated sheet rock but he had no objection to providing it. The Chairman added that another request for a smoke detector seemed inappropriate as he felt that a heat detector would be more suitable. Timothy Crowell noted that the Fire Inspector wanted a 2 hour rating for the room that would contain the paints which he also thought was overkill but would provide.
Don Duhaime asked Timothy Crowell if he had spoken with the State regarding the access to the site and Driveway Permit. Timothy Crowell replied that he had not. The Chairman explained that in cases like these the State usually modified the permit to include the fact that a home business was being added which was noted on the plan. Tracy Crowell stated that she had spoken with NHDOT regarding the business sign and asked if this was the same entity that would modify the Driveway Permit. The Chairman replied that it was and was considered a minor item of adjustment. Tracy Crowell noted that the road they were located on was considered a minor road versus a State Highway like NH Route 13. The Chairman asked if the parking delineation had been clarified on the
plan. Timothy Crowell replied that it was. The Chairman recalled that traffic impact had been discussed at the last meeting as not being an issue.
Douglas Hill asked Timothy Crowell if the proposed business would be his full or part time job. Timothy Crowell replied that it would begin as part time work and hopefully increase to a full time position in the future. The Chairman asked Timothy Crowell if he had gotten any information on the paint booth he intended to have on site. Timothy Crowell replied that the Fire Inspector had informed him that an acceptable structure for painting needed to have a 1 hour rating with sheet rock. He added that the State had informed him that as long as proper filtration measures were in place a spray booth was not necessary unless he preferred one and that 5/8” sheet rock was acceptable in the structure where the spraying would take place. Timothy Crowell added that
he had placed a sign at the driveway where it split off to his neighbors property so that patrons would be properly directed to the business site. Tracy
Crowell added that the dirt driveway to the site had been recently improved with excavation and hard pack materials.
The Chairman stated that his only concern was referencing the requirement based on the Fire Inspector’s memo to the applicant as he did not agree with the defined industry occupation as a major repairs garage. He asked Timothy Crowell if the furnace was mounted on a block or directly on the floor. Timothy Crowell replied that he was not sure. The Chairman asked if Timothy Crowell’s method of heating on site was gas or oil. Timothy Crowell replied that it was oil. The Chairman replied that furnaces were usually mounted off the floor and placed in a separate room behind the room where auto restoration work took place so that fumes could not easily ignite the furnace. He added that the Building Inspector could address this during his review.
Christine Quirk asked how the Board should address the Fire Inspector’s memo. The Chairman reiterated that he did not think that the uniform fire code was being properly administered as the proposed business was not a major repair garage. The Coordinator offered that the Board could note that this memo would be addressed between the Fire Inspector and the applicant during the construction process. The Chairman agreed. He asked Timothy Crowell if he had spoken with the Building Inspector. Timothy Crowell replied that he had not. Tracy Crowell noted that the Building Inspector had visited the site when her husband was not home and that their Building Permit had been issued.
Christine Quirk MOVED to approve the site plan for Timothy and Tracey Crowell, to operate an auto restoration home business from two existing accessory buildings identified as "garage" and "shed" on the site plans at 456 Chestnut Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #15/29-9, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITION(S) PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of three (3) copies of the revised site plan that include all checklist corrections and any agreed-upon conditions from this hearing, and including a note that disposal of all hazardous materials shall be in accordance with state and federal laws;
2. Submission of a revised Driveway Permit from NH DOT.
3. Execution of a Site Review Agreement regarding the condition(s) subsequent;
The deadline for complying with the condition(s) precedent shall be July 30, 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 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.
CONDITION(S) SUBSEQUENT:
1. All of the site improvements are to be completed per the approved site plan;
2. The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that
all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing and the opening of the business on the site;
3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted prior to the compliance hearing;
4. A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of Permit to Operate or Certificate of Occupancy, or both.
The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be July 30, 2007, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing on same as described in item 4 above.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that once the applicant felt the site was compliant that he should notify the Planning Department and if compliance was approved they would then notify the Building Inspector to release the Certificate of Occupancy so that he could begin operating.
HEAFIELD, CRAIG Adjourned from 4/10/07
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. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman stated that he had no concerns regarding the recent site walk. Douglas Hill asked if tractor trailer trucks would be accessing the site for the proposed business. Craig Heafield replied that there would be some. Douglas Hill asked if there was vegetation growing close to the road at the driveway’s entrance point from NH Route 13 in consideration of sight distance and traffic especially during the winter months. Craig Heafield replied that the sight distance from the entrance point was good and noted that gravel trucks accessed the site now and had no problems negotiating sight lines and traffic. Dick Wood wondered how much business the logging proposal would generate during winter months anyway. Craig Heafield replied that log storage
would be a year round operation. Douglas Hill asked if most of the traffic exiting the site would be heading towards Goffstown, NH along NH Route 13. Craig Heafield replied that the majority of the trucks leaving the site would head towards Goffstown, NH, as they would want to access the highways, however, he planned to widen either side of the entrance point at the driveway. Douglas Hill asked how much traffic would be generated by the business. Craig
Heafield thought that it would be approximately 15 trips per day which was what the gravel operation on site did now. He added that the Town and State had renewed his gravel permit for the coming year and if the digging was not completed this year he may need to apply for another permit the following year. Douglas Hill asked if Craig Heafield would be shutting down his gravel operation for this proposed business. Craig Heafield replied that he would not as he still had an acre left to excavate and would allow space for this. Stu Lewin asked if log storage would be along both sides of the driveway into the site. Alden Beauchemin noted changes to the plan which were highlighted. He pointed out that they had originally anticipated log storage along both sides of the driveway and would adjust the road
width if needed. Craig Heafield noted that he wanted to maximize storage space along the sides of the driveway for log storage and also to straighten out the “S” curve. Alden Beauchemin pointed out that one side of the driveway allowed for a very good turning radius for large trucks. Dick Wood added that they wanted to maintain a 75’ radius at the driveway entrance.
Alden Beauchemin stated that a 50’ wetland buffer applied per the Wetland Ordinance, therefore, it was now shown on the plan. He noted the location of the snow storage areas and a detail of the entrance. Alden Beauchemin added that they were in the process of updating an existing NHDOT approval which was shown on sheet #2 while the cover sheet to the plan noted areas of disturbance. The Chairman asked what the loudest machine on site would be. Craig Heafield replied that it would likely be the stump grinder which was a loud machine but not offensive like a rock crusher might sound. Douglas Hill asked the hours of operation proposed. Craig Heafield replied that they were 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and Saturdays. Alden
Beauchemin questioned whether exterior lights would be required as a note on the plan said that the business would operate until “5:00 p.m. or dusk”. Craig Heafield noted that there would be no stump grinding on the weekend and in fact, there may only be grinding done a couple of times per year at week long intervals as it took a considerable amount of time to stockpile grinding material. The Chairman returned to the subject of hours of operation and asked if maintenance work to machinery would be considered after dusk. Alden Beauchemin replied that there would be limited maintenance on evenings and weekends if necessary. Christine Quirk noted that “5:00 p.m. or dusk” could mean that the business could remain open later in the summer. Craig Heafield replied that the note should be interpreted to mean whichever was earlier.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she had any issues regarding the plan. The Coordinator replied that she did not. Douglas Hill asked if sanitary services would be provided on site. The Chairman stated that this did not concern him since the site was large. Stu Lewin asked how far the water reached into the property from NH Route 13 at the driveway entrance to the site during the recent rain event. Craig Heafield replied that the water was not in the driveway but that it did reach into the road (NH Route 13) from the Piscataquog River.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the site plan for Craig Heafield to operate a stump/wood recycling and log yard from property at Tax Map/Lot #6/16 & 6/22, NH
Route 13 a/k/a River Road, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of three (3) copies of the revised site plan that include all
checklist corrections, waivers and any agreed-upon conditions from this hearing;
HEAFIELD, cont.
2. Execution of a Site Review Agreement regarding the condition(s) subsequent;
3. Receipt of amended Driveway Permit from NH DOT.
4. Submission of any outstanding Site Plan application fees.
The deadline for complying with the condition(s) precedent shall be July 30, 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 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.
CONDITION(S) SUBSEQUENT:
1. All of the site improvements are to be completed per the approved site plan;
2. The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing and opening of the business on the site;
3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted prior to the compliance hearing;
4. A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of Permit to Operate or Certificate of Occupancy, or both. The business cannot be operated until the compliance hearing has been held, and an affirmative finding made by the Planning Board.
The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be July 30, 2007, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing on same as described
in item 4 above.
The Coordinator asked if there were any improvements needed on site. Craig Heafield replied that there was still some consideration being given to the placement of a business sign. Alden Beauchemin added that at the driveway’s entrance point they planned to pave 50’ in. Dick Wood clarified that this would allow for the tires of the trucks to be cleaned off before entering onto NH Route 13. He added that a 25’ radius would be paved at the driveway entrance also.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
BARSS, KENNETH R. JR. & LORI A. Adjourned from 4/10/07
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 Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission.
The Chairman stated that a site walk had been held recently and there had been much discussion at it. He asked if the applicant proposed adding concrete to the stonewall he planned to construct along the wetland buffer. Kenneth Barss, Jr., replied that he did not and that it would just be a pile of rocks. The Chairman stated that this was good because if concrete had been proposed then it would make the wall a more permanent structure. Christine Quirk noted that she had not been able to attend the site walk and had no objection to the applicant’s proposal but would like to come and see the site at some point. Kenneth Barss, Jr., was agreeable. The Chairman noted that he was surprised by the height difference of the existing grade on site as it
related to the proposed grade as he had thought the variance would be less than it actually was. He added that he found it a pleasant surprise to see that erosion control measure had been taken with stacked hay bales even though no construction disturbance had occurred yet. The Chairman asked Burr Tupper if he felt that a bond would be required from the likelihood of any environmental disturbance on site. Burr Tupper replied that he did not think this would be the case. The Chairman asked if the criteria of the CUP had been reviewed at the last meeting. The Coordinator replied that it had.
Christine Quirk MOVED to accept 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, as complete. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the application as complete, and to grant the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of Lori A. & Kenneth R. Barss, Jr., to construct a structure in the Wetlands and Stream Corridor Conservation District on property on Mont Vernon Road, known as Tax Map/Lot #14/90 as the five conditions for granting the Permit have been found to exist, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Any revisions to the site plan as decided by the Board at the hearing (if applicable).
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be July 30, 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, 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 construction of the structure in the Wetlands and Stream Corridor Conservation District, as shown on the approved construction design plan.
The site will be 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 December 1, 2007.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 22, 2007
1. Approval of minutes of April 24, 2007, with or without changes distributed by email prior to the meeting of May 8, 2007. (No Copies)
Stu Lewin asked what the process would be if a Board member wished to change the minutes. The Chairman replied that what had been stated in the minutes could not be changed but if something had been misinterpreted in the recording that was an example of a change that could be noted. Douglas Hill added that another example would be if a Board member had been incorrectly recorded as making a certain statement.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of April 24, 2007, as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Driveway Permit for Vista Road, LLC, Hutchinson Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5-15, for the Board’s final approval.
Stu Lewin stated that there were rocks at the barrier point but nothing had been added to the deed. The Chairman recalled that he had stated that he would not sign the Driveway Permit until appropriate language about maintaining the barrier at the edge of the driveway for this lot was attached to the deed. The Coordinator noted that the homeowners had moved in and wondered what recourse the Board had. The Chairman replied that they had none but he would not sign the permit for the reasons he mentioned.
BARSS, RAYMOND
BERNIER, LINDA A. & ROLAND R.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Joe English Road
Tax Map/Lot # 14/55 & 14/56-1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, who represented the applicants.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he represented the applicants of both lots which were next to each other while Mr. Barss lived across the street. He explained that Raymond Barss’ lot; 14/55, was approximately 9 acres and that the Tracking Station abutted 50% of the site while abutting residents bordered the remainder. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that this parcel was long and narrow with a considerable amount of wetlands on the eastern and southern ends. He noted a wetland boundary that flowed in a northwesterly direction and another that drained off the Bernier land, crossed the Barss land and ran under Joe English Road and northwesterly into Meadow Brook. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that 2 lots were proposed with one being a conventional front lot of 2 acres (formerly
Raymond Barss’ asparagus bed). He added that Mr. Barss wanted the ability to sell one or both lots in case he had a financial need although he had no immediate plans to do so. Bob Todd, LLS, continued that the second proposed lot would be a backlot and the lot line ran between the two so that Parcel A would become part of the Bernier lot which would then allow for the backlot. He noted the test pits on the plan and added that any building on the lots would be proposed beyond their woodlines. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that on the 2 acre lot the first test pit’s seasonal high water was at 24” and 72” at no refusal and free water was not observed. He added that the second test pit was at 54” with no free water and the perched water table was at 32”.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that State Subdivision Approval was received, Driveway Permit applications were submitted to the Town and the standard waivers had been requested for the plan.
Stu Lewin asked where a house would be proposed on the 2 acre lot as it would seem to need to fit between a wetland and setback. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that this was the case and clarified that it would be beyond a tree line with 70’ of space if building occurred there or if the building was moved closer to the front of the lot there would only be sideline setbacks involved. The Chairman asked if the plan included a note stating that no further subdivision would occur. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this had not been considered and he was unsure how any further subdivision could occur unless there was another lot line adjustment done with another abutter. Douglas Hill asked the frontage of Parcel A. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was 75’ to 79’. Douglas Hill noted that there were wetlands at the front of this lot and asked the width of the property line to them. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was 4” and that they had been able to set bounds at 2 locations that were not in
wetlands. The Chairman stated that a site walk would be likely. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the site and its driveways were staked and all wetlands had been flagged. Don Duhaime stated that note #16 of the plans said that no structure would be constructed within 50’ of wetlands, however, he thought that the Wetlands Ordinance stated the measure at 75’. Burr Tupper noted that 75’ applied to the placement of septic systems. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the wetland setback could be waived up to 100’ at the Board’s discretion also. He added that an existing cistern was located 900’ from the site on a road that was south east of its location. Jeff St. John noted this to be Barss Drive.
A site walk was scheduled for Tuesday, May 29, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. Stu Lewin asked if there was any known planned development in the general area of the site in consideration of the waivers requested for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Bob Todd, LLS, replied there was none to his knowledge. The Chairman asked if there were any Steep Slopes on site. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that there were none that qualified as critical. The Chairman stated that he had no issues with the waivers requested. Christine Quirk and Douglas Hill agreed. Don Duhaime stated that he did not think that the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and soils map should be waived until a site walk was held but he had no issue with considering waivers to the
Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies.
Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waivers requested for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies, in a memo dated 4/11/07, by Bob Todd, LLS. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the Board would act on the remaining two waiver requests at the next meeting which would take place after the site walk was held.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of Raymond Barss and Linda A. and Roland R. Bernier, Minor Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Joe English Road, Tax Map/Lot # 14/55 & 14/56-1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to June 26, 2007, at 8:00 p.m. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
3. A copy of a memorandum dated May 11, 2007, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator & Board of Selectmen, Peter Hogan, Chairman, and Planning Board Members, Ed Hunter, Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Official, re: Carol Hayse and Rick Herget, Rock Removal, Tax Map/Lot # 14/128, Summit Drive, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator stated that she was unsure why the property owners had contacted the State but explained that they did not want to have to renew their gravel permit under Section 155-E and that was the only thing their business fit into under the Town’s Ordinance. She noted that the fee for a gravel permit was $25.00 to the Town and $100.00 to the State and if there was not 100,000 s.f. of open land being excavated then Site Specific was not required. The Coordinator added that the ZBA were involved in terms of what had been excavated from the site and if erosion had occurred and the site was being restored to its natural condition. Don Duhaime stated that he had walked the site and did not think the property owners were doing any harm to it as they were taking the
rocks off the surface with ledge remaining underneath, therefore, no erosion was occurring. The Coordinator explained that the Selectmen regulated gravel permits for the Town and without a permit there was no permitted use on the land that this use could qualify for. Don Duhaime asked if “Mining” could clarify the use. The Coordinator replied that the operation did not fit that category. The Chairman thought that “Farming” might be a considered use. The Coordinator explained that the issue involved the procedure of the business and the Selectmen would need to decide if a gravel permit was warranted. She added that the business did not fit into the definition of “Farming”. The Chairman noted that they needed to keep the property owners abiding by what the ZBA gave them their special exception for. Christine Quirk clarified that the property owners had been contacted in writing by the Selectmen
because of the gravel permit renewal period and told that they had to apply. The Chairman noted that if the State did not see the operation as a gravel pit then it would be difficult to prove. He thought the Planning Board should not make any recommendations until the State and Selectmen had concluded their discussion on the matter.
4. Copies of information from the OEP Conference, April 28, 2007, re: Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, Corridor Studies and Land Use Law Update, were distributed for the Board’s information.
6. Daily road inspection reports dated May 7th and 11th, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: SHB Properties, LLC, were distributed for the Board’s information.
7. Read File: Fax announcing 2nd Annual Metro Center Municipal Leadership Forum, May 23, 2007, 4-6 p.m., NH Institute of Politics, Saint Anselm College.
8. Read File: Public Notice from the Town of Epsom, Planning Board, Re: Non-Residential Site Plan Reviews to construct Personal Wireless Service Facilities.
NAPIERKOSKI, KATIE L. & CHAD P.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Dog Grooming Home Business
Location: 66 Parker Road
Tax Map/Lot # 3/136
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants Katie and Chad Napierkoski. Abutters present were Dan Hodgekins, Linden Hodgkins and Scott Neeson.
Katie Napierkoski stated that she had received the Coordinator’s review of the plans and made the appropriate revisions. She explained that she proposed an in-home dog grooming business in the rear portion of their walkout basement that would be accessed by an attached walkway from their driveway. She noted proposed lighting, snow removal areas, parking spaces and business sign on the plan. Katie Napierkoski added that this would be a part time business for her 1 night a week as her full time job was as a vocational counselor for the State. The Chairman asked who drew the plan as it was very well done. Katie Napierkoski replied that she did the plan. Stu Lewin asked if all the exterior lighting on the plan was new to the plan. Katie
Napierkoski replied that it was all new and proposed except for a light fixture located at the right front corner of the house. She noted that she expected that she would take one hour to groom an averaged sized dog, therefore, there should be no more than two or three client cars coming to the house to drop off dogs at a time. The Chairman asked if the grooming would be done inside. Katie Napierkoski replied that it would and noted that she had submitted copies of the internal plan. The Chairman noted that not having any of the business aspects outside simplified things a lot from the Planning Board’s view point. Stu Lewin asked if dogs waiting to be groomed would be crated. Katie Napierkoski replied that any dog not on the grooming table would be crated. Stu Lewin asked the applicant if she expected about 5 dogs at a time on the premises for grooming. Katie Napierkoski replied that she expected 5 or 6 dogs in a full day of
operating and probably 3 to 5 at a time on a full schedule. Douglas Hill asked if there was an area for the dogs to relieve themselves before going inside to be groomed. Katie Napierkoski replied that she planned on an area for collecting waste. She added that all dogs would be expected to arrive on a leash.
Abutter Dan Hodgkins asked if dog boarding was proposed. Katie Napierkoski replied that it was not and that dogs would be dropped off and picked up by clients and crated inside while waiting for services. Stu Lewin clarified that there would be no overnight stays for dogs. Katie Napierkoski replied there would not. Dan Hodgkins replied that boarding had been his main concern. Katie Napierkoski stated that she understood that a level of respect was required given that the business proposed was on a quiet street with neighbors. She added that all of the operations of the business would be internal in the back of the house other than a business sign and external lighting. Douglas Hill clarified that the applicant would have minimal business hours.
Katie Napierkoski replied that they would be because she also worked full time. Stu Lewin asked if the applicant would need to return to the Board if she decided to change the day of the week she wanted to operate from what was on the plan. The Chairman replied that she
may want to expand the days listed on the plan for this reason and offered the example of Monday through Thursday 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and every other Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. which she had stated was currently her day off from her full time job. Katie Napierkoski stated that this was good advice as she may be busier with grooming appointments at certain times of the year such as before holidays. The Chairman asked the applicant if she wanted to consider listing weekend hours on the plan also. Katie Napierkoski replied that she was unsure but understood the point that she should keep things broad on the plan. The Chairman agreed and noted that her business would be self regulated by the number of dogs she could keep inside the basement area at a time. Abutter Scott Neeson stated that he had no issue
with the proposal as long as the business was to be conducted inside the applicant’s house. Douglas Hill thought that Saturday hours should be added to the plan to keep things broad enough for the applicant in case she decided later on to work during the weekend.
Stu Lewin asked if the applicant had looked at the septic requirements given the water usage of the grooming business. Katie Napierkoski replied that there would not be water running all the time for the business and she had contacted other groomers regarding this question. She added that a filtration system would be installed to block dog hair. The Chairman asked what the abutters thoughts were on the parking plan proposed. Dan Hodgkins thought that it was doable. Katie Napierkoski asked if she would need to return to the Board if they ever decided to pave the driveway or widen its turnaround. The Chairman replied that they would not. Douglas Hill noted that it was their turnaround and would be their option to widen. Katie Napierkoski asked
what the case would be if they decided to put up walls in the basement area at some point. The Chairman replied that they would need to contact the Building Inspector.
The Chairman felt that a site walk could be waived but noted that when all plan items were in place on site a compliance site walk would be held prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use being issued by the Building Inspector. He asked if the parking delineation was obvious. Katie Napierkoski replied that it was. She asked if she was required to have a business sign outside. The Chairman replied that she could put one up if she preferred but noted that it was not currently on the plan so if she wanted a sign she would need to add it. He added that he thought it should be made obvious to patrons where they needed to direct their dogs once they were parked in the driveway. Katie Napierkoski clarified that if she wanted to put such a sign on her garage
she needed to add it to the plan. The Chairman replied that was the case. He added that the exterior lights proposed would also need to be up at the time of the compliance site walk.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the site plan for Katie and Chad Napierkoski, to operate a dog grooming home business from the existing dwelling at 66 Parker Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/126, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITION(S) PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of three (3) copies of the revised site plan that include all checklist corrections and any agreed-upon conditions from this hearing;
2. Execution of a Site Review Agreement regarding the condition(s) subsequent;
The deadline for complying with the condition(s) precedent shall be July 30, 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 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.
CONDITION(S) SUBSEQUENT:
1. All of the site improvements are to be completed per the approved site plan;
2. The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to
scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing and the opening of the business on the site;
3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted prior to the compliance hearing;
4. A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of Permit to Operate or Certificate of Occupancy, or both.
The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be July 30, 2007, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing on same as described in item 4 above.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
5. Discussion, re: Memo from Planning Coordinator dated April 9, 2007, re: Planning Board Procedures, Etc., distributed at April 10, 2007, meeting.
The Coordinator explained that she had issued this memo to the Board because their Rules of Procedure had not been thoroughly reviewed in quite a while and had attached the Riggins Rules because they offered a common sense approach to running a meeting and seemed somewhat easier to use than Roberts Rules which were very detailed. The Chairman stated that he had no interest in the suggestion from Riggins Rules to introduce Board members at the start of every hearing. The Coordinator noted that this was often helpful to applicants who may not know Board members or have an ex-officio replacement at meetings who was different from their prior meeting. She noted that an optional idea would be to have a nameplate in front of each Board member. The Board agreed. Stu
Lewin added that he thought it would be a good idea for regular speakers at meeting such as representatives from the Conservation Comission, etc., to introduce themselves before contributing to discussions. The Chairman clarified that it was his responsibility to see that such individuals identified themselves and would try to do this consistently. Don Duhaime thought that these individuals should also be limited to 2 or 3 minutes of speaking time. The Coordinator added that a better way to go about this would be to lay out the procedure to be followed at the start of each hearing with the added noted that the Board reserved the right to limit comments from audience members. She further added that she had copied law lecture materials to Board members that discussed the necessity of granting approvals based on legal submittals along with the Board’s duty to assist applicants during their process. The Coordinator clarified that it would be
important to strike a balance between the two.
The Coordinator next wished to review the subject of cover sheets for hearings and noted that she preferred getting this information to the Board members’ mail bins on the Friday before a meeting for weekend review rather than an earlier day of the week to prevent them from being misplaced. She added that she could include as much or as little information in the cover sheets as the Board preferred but cautioned that too little information could result in more work during actual meetings to bring them up to par on a hearing. Christine Quirk stated that she thought the cover sheets contained the right amount of information as they were prepared now. Don Duhaime agreed that the information they contained was more than adequate. He added that the information on
Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies seemed like it was costly to copy and suggested that applicants with larger reports on these topics should bear the cost of submitting the right number of copies for each Board member. The Coordinator noted that the reports the Board did not receive in full were the Drainage Studies for plans while the Traffic Studies usually had added information behind it that was full of traffic count numbers. She further noted that the Board received the summary at the front of the Traffic Study because of this. The Board’s consensus was that the amount of information currently included on the cover sheets was adequate. The Coordinator asked that Board members note topics on the cover sheets that they wished to discuss at meetings as if subjects were not raised from them she assumed that the Board had no issue with a specific topic listed.
Regarding Miscellaneous Business the Coordinator stated that she had heard the Board’s comments that it was difficult to have certain discussions after 10:00 p.m. but noted that if they could review the topics the weekend before a meeting it might prompt ideas and comments ahead of time that could keep the meeting progressing on that night. She asked that Board members bring cover sheets from prior meetings to their subsequent hearings if they included items that had not yet been covered in discussion. The Coordinator noted that she could provide folders for this if it was helpful.
The Coordinator stated that it may be helpful to have different Board members chair different topics of discussion during the first hour of a meeting which had recently become dedicated to future planning in order to keep the focus on certain issues. Don Duhaime stated that he thought Board meetings should come to an end at 11:00 p.m. instead of going later. The Coordinator explained that this was why the Board had the discretion to move to extend a meeting or not beyond a certain time which was actually 11:30 p.m. Don Duhaime asked how it
would be possible to keep hearings moving along within their half hour time slots instead of going 45 minutes or more. The Coordinator replied that the time spent on a hearing depended on the discussion being had where if the Board was focused on a topic they should keep going with it and in the same manner if they were having irrelevant discussion they should continue in a more positive direction as they were not giving the applicant their full opportunity. She added that in regard to public input the Board should be polite when attempting to limit audience members’ comment time. Don Duhaime asked if it would be considered improper to make a comment to another Board member if they felt the discussion was becoming long winded. The Chairman replied that that would not be out of line.
The Coordinator stated that when it came time to make motions it would be better if Board members made the full motion themselves rather than having the Chairman read it. Stu Lewin suggested that Board members take turns motioning on a rotational basis. The Coordinator stated that this was a possibility although she knew that certain Selectmen who sat on the Board as ex-officios did not like to make motions.
Stu Lewin recalled that he had sent an email to the Coordinator suggesting that applicants include outside developments abutting their applications at the scale of the Town tax maps to their plans. The Coordinator replied that this information could be added to the preliminary and final plans of applicants by the Planning Department. The Chairman noted that this was an item that could be considered as becoming a Subdivision Regulation so that the Planning Department did not have to do the work to get this information on the plan. Don Duhaime recalled that having such information for the Indian Falls/Bussiere plan had been helpful. Stu Lewin thought that there should be specific wording in the language of the Regulations that specified the Board’s discretion to
visit sites in the process of an application outside of formally scheduled site walk times. The Board agreed. The Coordinator noted that she could make the necessary changes to the proposed upcoming Subdivision Regulation and Rules of Procedure changes.
9. The minutes of May 8, 2007, were noted as having been distributed by email, for approval at the meeting of June 12, 2007, with or without changes.
10. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Gregory J. Comeau, Tax Map/Lot # 2/63, 9 Davis Lane, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
Due to multiple signature sheets the Chairman stated that the above noted endorsement could be addressed at the end of the meeting.
11a. Schedule a compliance site walk for Damian Martineau, Tax Map/Lot # 3/127, 737 River Road, Damian’s Restaurant, (formerly known as the Shipwreck Restaurant).
A compliance site walk was scheduled for Tuesday, May 29, 2007, at 7:00 p.m.
11b. A copy of an email received May 21, 2007, from Damian Martineau, requesting an extension to conditions subsequent for Tax Map/Lot #3/127, 737 River Road, Damian’s
Restaurant, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the conditions subsequent for the application of Damian Martineau, Tax Map/Lot #3/127, 737 River Road, Damian’s Restaurant, to 7/01/07. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
12. Discussion, re: driveways.
The Coordinator stated that she and the Planning Assistant along with Kevin Leonard, Northpoint Engineering, had checked the calibration between the smart levels used by the Highway Department and the Planning Department (which were the same) and had also considered the way in which surveyors measured grades by looking at centerlines. She explained that when coming off an 8% grade in a roadway there would be some variations on driveway grades. She noted that there seemed to be a disconnect between subdividers and builders for the same lots in certain cases and this needed to be addressed as to how it would be handled before the time of the issuance of the CO. Stu Lewin thought that it would be the builders’ responsibility to conform to what was required for driveway
grades. Don Duhaime thought that all driveways should be reviewed by the Board when they were at subgrade status. The Coordinator noted that the lot that spawned this discussion (Hutchinson Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5) appeared to have a flat grade at the time its driveway permit was approved but steepened after the foundation for the house was installed. Douglas Hill suggested that before a CO was issued the builder should contact the Road Agent to review the driveway grade and if there was an issue he could notify the Planning Department so that the Board could address the matter. The Coordinator replied that such timing would be too late in the process along with the fact that the Road Agent was not reviewing driveways currently. She noted that the time to catch grade issue was when the stub was in. Douglas Hill did not think there was any way to catch driveway grade issues until paving was completed. Stu Lewin offered to act as a
“driveway inspector” if that would help the process. The Chairman replied that currently the “inspector” was the Road Agent or the Planning Board’s designee. The Coordinator clarified that the Chairman was referring to language in the Driveway Regulations and this issue needed to be addressed in the Subdivision Regulations. The Chairman thought that the Building Inspector needed to be informed of the grade issues with driveways. Douglas Hill thought that catching a grade problem ahead of a foundation being set for a lot was futile as the water table for a site dictated where the foundation would go. The Coordinator noted that for most driveways such issues would not occur, however, in the case of outstanding ones the elevation of the house would need to be established and the Board would need the assurance that the elevation would correspond to an acceptable grade. Douglas Hill thought that before a driveway permit
was issued an applicant would need to prove on the plan that an acceptable driveway grade could be achieved. Don Duhaime suggested that a driveway be viewed at subgrade before its home’s foundation was installed and then after the foundation was completed and the driveway was roughed in. Stu Lewin asked why the driveway in question on Hutchinson Road had not worked out if an as-built had been required. Douglas Hill replied that the Board should have asked for pre-engineered plans instead.
13. Driveway Permit Application for Doris Leedham, Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot # 8/6, for the Board’s action.
The Planning Assistant and the Coordinator noted that although the ZBA had recently granted a setback for this property owner they were awaiting comments from Town Counsel.
14. Driveway Permit Applications for SHB Properties, LLC, Tax Map/Lot # 12/65, Pulpit Road, for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator noted that these driveways were flat grades but based on the Board’s discussion of item #12 on driveways they would typically view the driveways again and act on the permits at the next meeting. The Chairman stated that given the flat grades he would be inclined to grant the permits now. Don Duhaime preferred to view the driveways and act at the next meeting. The Board’s consensus was that this would be done.
15. Daily Road inspection reports dated May 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: SHB Properties, LLC, were distributed for the Board’s information
16. Proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations and Rules of Procedures for the public hearing of June 12, 2007, were distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator asked that the Board become familiar with the terminology for the Stormwater Management Plan as there were a couple of additions to the language. She noted that she had attached copies of all application forms and checklists as some formats had changed and there was a new one for the Stormwater Management Plans. The Coordinator noted that she would add Stu Lewin’s suggestion regarding requiring tax map sized copies of the subdivision plans. Christine Quirk asked if the Stormwater Management Plans would be required for subdivision applications. The Coordinator replied that certain criteria need to apply which had been in the Subdivision Regulations since 2002, such as the number of lots, critical areas and the type of road proposed. She
noted that this occurrence would also trigger whether a bond was required at the Building Permit stage of construction. The Coordinator suggested that when it came time for the public hearing on these amendments the Board should consider that the amendment should apply retroactively to applications in process.
The Coordinator stated that at the time that the Akerman plan was approved the Board had neglected to approve the Driveway Permit.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #06-040 for Heidi
Akerman, Tax Map/Lot #1/12, Saunders Hill Road, for a proposed driveway, 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 driveways shall intersect
with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Coordinator noted that earlier in the evening during the discussion with Jack Munn he mentioned he had had a discussion with her regarding backlot Zoning. She wished to clarify that she had met with Jack Munn after the Chairman had asked him at a meeting what could be done about the density of the proposed Lorden subdivision based on our current regulations. The Coordinator stated that Jack Munn had focused on the backlot issue and she had not directed him to simply look at that single topic.
At 11:20 p.m. Stu Lewin MOVED to adjourn. Christine Quirk seconded the
motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien,
Recording Clerk
| 
