TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of March 4, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Douglas Hill. Chairman Peter Hogan was not in attendance. Present were regular members, Don Duhaime, Stu Lewin, and; ex-officio Dave Woodbury. 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 Craig Heafield, Tom Miller, Thomas and Christine Quirk, Barry Charest, Wayne Charest, Ray Shea, Michael Capsupis(sp), Mike Pavesi, Diane Corricelli, Patricia Monbouquette, Sue St. Cyr, Katherine Kachavos, David Smith, David Jewers, Mark and Christine Bilodeau, Rodney Towne and Lyn Lombard.
Discussion, re: Housing and Conservation Planning Program and Inclusionary Zoning.
The Coordinator stated that she had not yet heard back from SNHPC regarding the scope of work and budget for this project but had started on the application forms and clarifications that the Town had completed the phases necessary to apply for the Stage 4 grant money which would enable New Boston to begin its work on writing the regulations for the program. She noted that the prior stages had been completed which included the update to the Master Plan. The Coordinator further noted that going through the Master Plan to provide reference pages for the State as to where the necessary topics had been discussed had provided a good reminder of how much work had gone into the Master Plan update. She stated that a good start to this application had been made and the Town
should be ready to request funding for regulation update work and could also be provided with details of the cost involved by SNHPC so that they would know what matching funds were needed. The Coordinator clarified that the matching funds could be derived from in kind costs, volunteer hours, budget money, or work from the Planning Department. Dave Woodbury asked what areas of the Subdivision Regulations would need updating. The Coordinator replied that they were looking at changing the Zoning Ordinance to add multi-family and accessory dwelling units (attached or detached) in consideration of affordable housing options and in conjunction with protecting the environment and historical features of the Town. Dave Woodbury asked what the current deficit was of the R-A District as it stood. The Coordinator replied that the bulk of the Town was RA and a small portion R-1 which was the Zone that allowed for affordable housing/multi-family construction.
She explained that the R-1 Districts were in many cases located in areas not conducive to construction such as wetlands, therefore, New Boston fell short in the affordable housing area and needed some more innovative ways to offer it. The Coordinator noted that the town of Amherst, NH, had attempted to offer affordable housing but their ordinance required that the planning board would need to delve into the personal finances of buyers to assure that they were qualified and that planning board did not want to do that therefore their ordinance had failed. She added that another town had tried affordable “village” subdivision plans which had not worked that well either. The Coordinator further added that many towns were looking at inclusionary zoning where developers got incentives for getting more units at market rates but regardless many towns had issues with affordable housing as they did not believe that costs were offset as proposed. Dave
Woodbury asked if part of the issue was that affordable housing needed to be subsidized in some way. Douglas Hill replied that in a small town like New Boston a mechanism would need to be put in place to do so versus in larger towns. The Coordinator asked how buyers of affordable housing achieved any return on their homes given that all other factors involved in ownership remained equal (taxes, maintenance, etc). Douglas Hill replied that the trade off was that they bought under the market rate originally and, therefore, were not going to get same profit return as a standard market priced home. The Coordinator noted that some towns worried that affordable housing construction would not be maintained as nicely as standard homes for this reason. Douglas Hill stated that he preferred market affordable housing versus dictated affordable housing. The Coordinator added that New Boston’s method of achieving this may be to come up with innovative
ways of offering affordable housing such as accessory dwelling units.
Stu Lewin asked for clarification on the Town’s requirements for providing affordable housing. The Coordinator replied that this was calculated by region and New Boston along with every other town/region fell short in this area. Douglas Hill noted that in Massachusetts the State had stepped in to inform their towns that if a developer proposed a project with 40% being affordable housing then the State’s regulations applied instead of that town’s regulations since many town’s had been so exclusionary in their requirements. Dave Woodbury thought that the term “affordable housing” had a bad connotation when it really referred to housing for the working class. The Coordinator agreed and noted that she liked the term “work force
housing” better for the same reason. She added that an important point to note was that inclusionary zoning was voluntary not mandatory, therefore, a developer was not required to provide affordable housing.
The Coordinator stated that the application to the State needed sign off by the Selectmen and she had asked the Town Administrator if he could schedule her in for the Selectmen’s March 10, 2008, meeting. She added that as soon as she heard back from SNHPC she would inform the Board. Dave Woodbury asked at what point decisions would be made as to what the program would look like before creating new regulations. The Coordinator stated that there was already an audit and scope of work in place from SNHPC in consideration of Future Land Use recommendations by the Master Plan (although it needed some revisions based on this application). She noted that the Chairman had previously put a halt on moving ahead with what was listed in the scope of work provided although
that decision had not necessarily been the opinion of the Board as a whole.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2008
3. Discussion, re: 229 Joe English Road, Bilodeau cordwood business. (DRIVE BY PRIOR TO MEETING)
Although the Bilodeaus were to be present later in the evening the Board determined that they would briefly discuss their observations on their drive-bys of the site in preparation for this item.
Don Duhaime stated that the current state of the site was nothing like what he had envisioned at the plan’s approval and although the minutes clarified that the Board had not clearly defined what was expected for inventory it seemed as though the Bilodeaus had taken things one step too far. Stu Lewin stated that he had reviewed the minutes along with notes he had taken on his own at the time of the site walk for the Bilodeaus and felt that the business had gone beyond its scope. Dave Woodbury stated that if the Planning Board rescinded its approval they risked the possibility that the wood on Mr. Bilodeau’s site could decompose and cause an environmental issue and he also did not feel that Mr. Bilodeau could address the large pile he had accumulated single handedly. Stu Lewin noted that if there was just a large pile at the back of the site it might not be such an issue, however, the pile by the road at the front of the property was unsightly. Don Duhaime agreed and
thought that the front pile should be addressed first to appease Mr. Bilodeau’s neighbors. Douglas Hill noted that Mr. Bilodeau’s site plan did note the front area as a work area. Stu Lewin added that he had taken notes at the time of the site walk which stated that Mr. Bilodeau intended to work the two sites in an alternating fashion, where one pile would be addressed one year and the other the following year and so on. Dave Woodbury felt that the current situation presented an eco-crisis as he could not see how Mr. Bilodeau could process his large inventory before it rotted.
During the discussion Tom Miller, an applicant for a later hearing arrived, and as he was in the sawing business, Dave Woodbury briefed him on the issue and asked his thoughts. Tom Miller stated that regarding the question of rot, oak wood, for example, rotted from the outside in, therefore, its heart wood was likely salvageable if rot were to occur. He added that maple wood became mineral stained when it began to set but it also became spalted and this was a sought after commodity of wood turners. Tom Miller stated that he would be willing to discuss trading or purchasing from Mr. Bilodeau for his own business if this became the case. He noted that large piles of wood/logs became more visually condensed when cut as the voids from the stacking were no longer present.
The Coordinator wished to note that, procedurally, the Board had the authority to revoke Mr. Bilodeau’s approval if they wished or could discuss with him that because at the time of the hearings held for the application the Board had in error not clarified how much wood would be on site at any given time. She added that the Board could, by their discretion, amend the plan to state the inventory they more likely expected. Dave Woodbury recalled that Mr. Bilodeau had stated at one of his hearings that 7 to 8 cords of timber would be on his site at one time. Stu Lewin noted that Mr. Bilodeau’s current inventory far exceeded 7 to 8 cords. Dave Woodbury stated that he would prefer that Mr. Bilodeau not accept any more wood to his site until he had worked what
was already there and complied with the intentions of his site plan. The Coordinator noted that the number of cords the Board preferred on site could be amended to the site plan if they felt there was an issue with the ultimate measure being revocation. Don Duhaime felt that Mr. Bilodeau should be given a chance to rectify the issue first.
1. Approval of minutes of January 22, 2008, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Don Duhaime MOVED to approve the minutes of January 22, 2008, as written. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for Twin Bridge Management, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #2/62 & 3/3, Twin Bridge Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Vice Chairman, in the Chairman’s absence, endorsed the above noted Subdivision Agreement.
4. A copy of a letter received February 19, 2008, from Robert Corson, Project Manager, Thibeault Corporation, to the Town of New Boston Planning board, re: request for extension on completion date for Hutchinson Lane subdivision to June 27, 2008, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill assumed that a reason for the extension request might be due to weather issues. Don Duhaime stated it was a good idea to wait awhile and David Woodbury agreed, noting that the compliance could then mean something.
Don Duhaime MOVED to grant an extension to Thibeault Corporation to June 27, 2008. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5. The minutes of February 12, 2008, were noted as having been distributed by email, for approval, with or without changes, at the meeting of March 25, 2008.
6. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for John and Rita Young, Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/41, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
Due to multiple signature sheets this item was addressed at the end of the meeting.
7. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Gerald and Dona Fairbairn, Bedford Road & Pheasant Lane, Tax Map/Lot #8/75, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
Due to multiple signature sheets this item was addressed at the end of the meeting.
8. Announcement of the 15th Annual Spring Planning and Zoning Conference for April 26, 2008, for the Board’s information.
The Planning Assistant stated that she would send out reminders of the conference sign ups via email to Board members.
9. A copy of an article from the February publication of Better Roads, re: building permits by state, was distributed for the Board’s information.
10. Read File: Public Hearing Notice from the Town of Londonderry for March 5, 2008, re: wireless communication.
The Planning Assistant reminded the Board that site walks were scheduled on March 15, 2008, for Steve LaBranche, Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot # 06/41-2, at 8:30 a.m. and for Kenneth Barss, Jr., 501 Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/90, at 9:15 a.m. +/-.
At 7:20 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break before the scheduled 7:30 p.m. hearing.
Douglas Hill stated for the record that the February 19, 2008, meeting minutes from the Small Scale Planned Commercial District Committee, had been copied to the Planning Board.
HEAFIELD, CRAIG (OWNER)
OLDE TIME SAWING & LUMBER, LLC (APPLICANT)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/NRSPR/Portable Saw Mill
Location: 722 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/22
Commercial “Com” District
The Vice Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Craig Heafield and the applicant Tom Miller. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Tom Miller stated that he had recently received a permit from the Selectmen to operate his portable saw mill on site. Dave Woodbury asked if customers would retrieve their lumber once Tom Miller sawed it or if he would operate in a retail fashion. Tom Miller replied that both custom sawing and lumber for sale would be offered. Douglas Hill asked where Tom Miller would conduct business on site, i.e., would he have a building or structure to do so. Craig Heafield replied that he had an existing building on the site which he owned and that Tom Miller could use that if needed since he was supplying him a spot to do his business. Dave Woodbury asked if the Town should anticipate that the proposed business would become larger in the future and have more
infrastructure. Tom Miller replied that he was a one man operation with a portable saw mill and did not anticipate giving that up to become any larger. He added that he wished to offer purchase and sale of logs as a convenience to those who might need a tree cut on their property and did not want to haul it to the dump so that in contrast he could saw the wood for them and they could either take it back or it could be sold. Dave Woodbury clarified that this was a niche market for Tom Miller. Tom Miller replied that was the case and that he had recently passed a lumber grading class to also provide that service but that his main focus would be custom sawing.
Dave Woodbury inquired about the proposed hours of operation of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Tom Miller replied that these hours would be mostly for summer operation as the portable saw mill could not be easily hauled in the winter months. Dave Woodbury wondered if there would be any noise issues but noted that the nearest residence was a distance from the site. Tom Miller stated that the motor for the saw mill was the same size as in a small to medium tractor. Dave Woodbury commented that for reasons unknown the Selectmen had been given the authority some time ago to license portable saw mills. Douglas Hill asked if this meant that once the permit was issued the applicant was able to operate on his chosen site. Dave Woodbury read from the permit and noted that
it referenced “…various sites…2 years from the date of issue.” Douglas Hill clarified that this would mean that the Selectmen’s approval was to cut on any lot in town but the Planning Board approval for lumber sales was for this site only and if Mr. Miller wished to move this aspect of the operation to a different site he would have to come back to the Planning Board for approval. Tom Miller added that the State had also given him a permit to operate and that while the bulk of his business would be going to the logs he would also be available to saw on different sites for retail business. Douglas Hill clarified that this meant Tom Miller was in more of a lumber yard scenario than cutting. Tom Miller replied that was the case and that he would be doing rough cutting.
Don Duhaime asked if the site was visible from the road. Tom Miller replied that the site was an existing commercial site but did have a treed area at the front. Don Duhaime asked how many logs Tom Miller expected to have on site at one time. Tom Miller replied that it would be an expense for him to have too many and he expected the majority of his work to be offsite with himself as the only employee in accordance with his LLC. Craig Heafield noted that he was letting Tom Miller use a 100’ X 100’ square on his property and to expand on this would require that he come back before the Board.
Dave Woodbury asked if there were any outstanding issues. The Coordinator stated that the Board might wish to schedule a site walk. She added that in regard to the existing Driveway Permit the State sometimes liked to change its wording to reflect all uses on a property. Craig Heafield noted that the current uses listed for the site were sand and gravel and motor vehicle retail services. Douglas Hill suggested that the applicant make a follow up call to NHDOT but did not foresee an issue as the same type of trucks would be accessing the site for the proposed business as did currently. Stu Lewin asked if Tom Miller would deal with processed woods. Tom Miller replied that he would be dealing with saw logs and nothing processed and would offer services to
people who needed trees cut that were down on their property. Dave Woodbury asked if Tom Miller would deal mainly with pine woods. Tom Miller replied that he would deal mostly with hardwood as he would be doing business with cabinet makers and turners. Dave Woodbury thought that given the scale of the site a compliance site walk might be more appropriate. The Board agreed. Douglas Hill noted that the applicant should make sure that his business sign was not placed in the State’s right-of-way.
The Coordinator asked if cutting would be taking place during the full span of the hours of operation. Tom Miller replied that the cutting was very physical work and he planned to cut from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and handle retail from approximately 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The Coordinator noted that similar businesses such as cordwood businesses typically did not start cutting as early as 7:00 a.m. and asked the Board if they thought the location of the applicant’s site would cause a noise issue to anyone. Craig Heafield noted that he started his gravel operation on the same property at 7:00 a.m. and that was more noise that Tom Miller would generate with his saw mill. The Board had no further issues.
Don Duhaime MOVED to accept the application of Craig Heafield (Owner) and Olde Time Sawing and Lumber, LLC (Applicant), NRSPR, Portable Saw Mill, Location: 722 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/22, Commercial “Com” District, as complete. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Stu Lewin MOVED to approve the Non-Residential Site Plan Application by Craig Heafield, owner, Olde Time Sawing and Lumber, LLC, applicant, to operate a portable sawmill from a portion of the site at 722 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/22, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Execution of a Site Review Agreement.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be April 04, 2008, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. All site improvements are to be completed as per the approved site plans.
2. The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing;
3. Receipt of DOT approval for lumber retail on existing driveway permit or note that no changes are required.
4. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted;
5. 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 any Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy, or both. No occupancy/use of the area of Tax Map/Lot #6/22 set aside for portable sawmill use shall be permitted until the site improvements as noted have been completed, and a site inspection and compliance hearing held.
The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be September 04, 2008, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing as noted in item #4 above.
Tom Miller stated that he could not provide an exact driveway width on the plan as that measure would vary from time to time. Douglas Hill suggested that a 12’ width be listed. The Coordinator asked how parking would be delineated. Tom Miller replied that log markers would be used. Douglas Hill asked if the entryway to the site would be clearly defined so that customers knew where to go. Tom Miller replied that it would with its signage. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
QUIRK, THOMAS P. & CHRISTINE A.
Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/8 Lots
Location: Clark Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/10
Residential-Agricultural “R-A’ District
The Vice Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering, the applicants Thomas and Christine Quirk and Christine Quirk’s sons Barry and Wayne Charest. Abutters and interested parties present were Michael Katsoupis, Diane Corricelli, Mike Pavesi, Patricia Monbouquette, David Smith, Sue St. Cyr, Katherine Kachavos, David Jewers and Lyn Lombard.
Ray Shea stated that 8 lots were proposed from a 40 acre parcel on Clark Hill Road. He explained that from the site Clark Hill was to the north, Dane Road to the west and Thornton Road to the east. Ray Shea noted that all of the proposed lots fronted on Clark Hill Road (2,800’ of frontage). He added that the parcel had originally totaled approximately 80 acres which had extended south to abut the applicants’ campground (Friendly Beaver Campground). Ray Shea stated that 11 or 12 years prior half of the 80 acres had been annexed to the campground with an additional 3 acre piece annexed 3 or 4 years ago leaving the current site at 40 acres. He added that the site had no existing structures and that for the lots 2 common driveways were proposed along
with a common access point for two other lots which would be from an existing graveled fire road that currently served as a fire safety road to the campground. Ray Shea noted that in using this access way the applicants proposed to push the gate to the safety road inward an additional 200’. Michael Katsoupis stated that he was an abutter and had some questions. As many of the interested parties and abutters had not seated themselves in the audience until a few minutes after the 8:00 start time for the hearing Douglas Hill noted that the presentation had begun on time and he wanted Ray Shea to continue before any questions were taken from the audience. Ray Shea continued and noted as a side item that when improvements were made to realign and straighten Clark Hill Road a portion of it clipped a corner section of the site to gain sight distance, therefore the road had cut through 0.10 of an acre of the site. Dave Woodbury asked if this was a
concern to the applicant. Ray Shea replied that it was not, however, it may be a concern to the Town. Don Duhaime thought that the clipped portion of acreage should be deeded to the Town.
Stu Lewin asked Ray Shea to clarify the proposal for the existing emergency access to the campground. Ray Shea stated that first 2 lots proposed a common driveway, the next two lots would have their own individual driveways, the 5th and 6th lot would be accessed by a common driveway and the seventh and eighth lot would use the fire access road to the campground by moving an existing gate on the road inward and using that portion of the road off which they would have their driveways constructed. Douglas Hill asked if all the lots could support their own driveways as this was a stipulation to consider a lot a legal lot. Ray Shea replied that they could. He noted that an amendment to the easement language for the fire access road would be needed so that driveways could
be accessed from it. Don Duhaime asked the width of the existing right-of-way on Clark Hill Road. Ray Shea replied that the road had been upgraded after 1996 and the right-of-way width varied from 40’ to 60’ based on measurements taken between existing stonewalls along the road. Don Duhaime stated that he would like to see some dedications made for 25’ from the center of the road in the event that further upgrades were needed in the future to Clark Hill Road and that this was also a concern of the Road Committee. Christine Quirk noted that Clark Hill Road had just been resurfaced two years prior. Dave Woodbury asked if all 40 acres of land to the south of the access road was under the same ownership. Ray Shea replied that it varied as under the ownership of Thomas Quirk versus Thomas and Christine Quirk. Dave Woodbury asked who owned the easement on lot #7/10-1. Ray Shea replied that Thomas Quirk owned the easement
across that lot. Douglas Hill asked how far in the proposed driveway would go on the first access. Ray Shea replied that it would be 120’
Interested party Michael Katsoupis stated that he lived across the road from the gated emergency access to the campground and when that access way was constructed he recalled that the Town had specified that it was a “fire road”. He noted that now it seemed to be proposed as a “road” to which he objected. Michael Katsoupis added that there was a lot of rowdiness that occurred in that area already and he did not think that adding more traffic by proposing lots was a good thing. Ray Shea noted that only two lots were proposed off the access way. Dave Woodbury asked if the access way was limited to a fire access way when it was originally established. Christine Quirk replied that when the campground applied for a 300 site expansion they
were told that they could not do so because the site did not abut a Class V road for trailer/camper access, therefore, they put their own road in which at the time residents of Clark Road and Dane Road complained about but the Planning Board gave exception to and the road was gated for security purposes. She recalled that during the flooding rain events of 2006 and 2007 they opened their road so that surrounding residents could get to their homes and it had surprised her that these residents commented that the campground was required to do so when they had merely acted out of good will by their own accord. Christine Quirk went on to say that she was once again surprised that surrounding residents were now complaining that she was subdividing her land when it was something she wanted to do for her grandchildren so that down the road if they wished to have homes in the Town they could. The Coordinator noted that there had been much discussion when the campground
expansion had been proposed regarding a second access to the campground and explained that use of Cochran Hill Road had been maintained as the primary access with the fire road discussed being the second emergency access. She noted that the Quirks could not use that road as a primary access for subdivision purposes because State law prohibits easements from being able to supply legal frontage. She added that one question the Town might have is how they felt about driveways being constructed off the secondary access and this was something that the Technical Review Committee would go over at their meeting on March 13th. Douglas Hill asked Ray Shea the significance of having driveways constructed off the secondary access. Ray Shea replied that the sight distance would be good and it would also minimize curb cuts. Douglas Hill asked if individual driveways to these lots would make any difference. Ray Shea replied that they would need to confirm
proper sight distance but other than that it was likely doable. Dave Woodbury clarified that the easement was likely to continue as one over an emergency access and wondered how constructing 2 driveways over the first 100’ of it would impact that.
Interested party Mike Pavesi asked for a review of the proposed lot driveways. Ray Shea replied that there would be 3 common driveways for 6 of the lots and 2 individual drives, therefore 5 new driveways proposed for 8 lots. Mike Pavesi asked about steep slopes on the lots. Ray Shea replied that there was ample room for a proper driveway on each lot without impacting any steep slopes. He added that the Planning Board would look at this when they held their site walk and require an Individual Stormwater Management Plan for lots in question to protect any Slopes and Wetlands on the site. Mike Pavesi felt that the lots would look better if they had longer driveways constructed versus 50’ and he hoped that the home styles chosen would be consistent with the
value of existing homes in the neighborhood, not $69K houses. Abutter Patricia Monbouquette stated that her property abutted the site and she had significant wetlands on her land. Douglas Hill noted that State Subdivision Approval was required and the State would review this closely before granting any approvals. Pat Monbouquette felt that it was unethical for a Selectman to be benefiting from such a proposal because of her rank in the Town and thought it presented a conflict of interest. Douglas Hill replied that Christine Quirk was a Town resident who had just as much right as any other property owner to subdivide if she wished. Pat Monbouquette stated that in her opinion New Boston had been spoiled by development and this was another example of that now being proposed by a Selectman. She recalled that in regard to the secondary emergency access established long ago she had been at the meeting where that was discussed and remembered that the
Town had stated it was to be used for emergency purposes only. Douglas Hill asked Patricia Monbouquette if she would prefer that the driveways proposed off the emergency access instead be individual driveways off Clark Hill Road. Pat Monbouquette replied that she would. Interested party Sue St. Cyr felt that the proposed subdivision could impact wetlands and noted that she lived across the street from Clark Swamp which harbored much wildlife and was surrounded by numerous brooks and a vernal pool as well. She wondered if the proposed subdivision would lead to road wash outs much like those suffered on Bedford Road since its development splurge. Douglas Hill reiterated that the State was very strict regarding its subdivision permits and if the applicants received State Subdivision Approval it meant that they met the requirements to do so. He added that the Town now had requirements for wetland setbacks based on the Wetland Regulations.
Michael Kapsoupis asked what defined a true wetland. Douglas Hill replied that they were numerous and stringent. Ray Shea added that the site was mapped by a wetland scientist and noted that the beige colored areas of the plans were wetlands which totaled approximately one third of the 40 acre site leaving approximately 27 dry acres for the proposed 8 lots.
Interested party Katherine Kachavos asked if the Town had regulations regarding what kind of lawn fertilizers could be used near wetlands. Douglas Hill replied that they did not. Katherine Kachavos asked what recourse the Town would have if pesticides or fertilizers were found in Clark Swamp. Douglas Hill replied that in his opinion the Town would have no involvement, however, at the State level the State Wetlands Bureau could become involved. Katherine Kachavos asked why she as a taxpayer should be liable to contribute funds to a clean up if Clark Swamp and its surrounding aquifers were to become contaminated. Douglas Hill stated that until 2007 the Town did not have wetland setbacks and they did now. In response to Katherine Kachavos’ question he
stated that if such contamination could be proven he supposed that the Town could take legal action. Interested party David Smith noted that in addressing Katherine Kachavos’ question he thought the Planning Board might consider how such issues could be addressed. He asked what would prevent further development along the applicant’s secondary access road to the campground if two lots were allowed. Christine Quirk replied that
this would not be possible because the rest of the road was part of the campground site. She maintained that she proposed these lots for her grandchildren to have house lots not to turn a profit by selling them. David Smith stated that he had no personal issues against the lots going in as long as they were constructed responsibly. Ray Shea agreed that there could be no further subdivision down the secondary access road. The Coordinator noted as a point of interest that if the secondary road were brought up to Class V road standards then more frontage would be available for lots.
Pat Monbouquette asked if there were any restrictions for the campground based on the number of tent sites allowed. Douglas Hill replied that this application had nothing to do with the campground. Sue St. Cyr asked if the next step involved the State permits. Ray Shea replied that if the Planning Board granted preliminary approval of the plan then the applicant would then apply for State permits and State Subdivision Approval (SSA). He added that the State would walk the site, view test pit areas, etc., and if SSA was received then the applicants could submit for a final application with the Planning Board which would then require them to submit certain studies and go through the hearing process once again. Sue St. Cyr stated that her main concern was
environmental impacts to the swamp lands. Patricia Monbouquette noted that traffic on Clark Hill Road was already an issue. Douglas Hill replied that these concerns would all be addressed as part of the application process. Michael Katsoupis stated that he wanted to see existing stonewalls preserved also. Douglas Hill noted that the Board would have a better idea of the property when they held their site walk. Diane Corricelli noted that Clark Hill Road had already been resurfaced twice due to existing water runoff issues. Interested party David Jewers added that during the rain event flooding of 2006 and 2007 there were some very big runoff issues on Clark Hill Road. He asked who would be responsible for cleaning out silt nets on site if this happened again. Douglas Hill replied that the developer of the site was responsible.
Pat Monbouquette asked if the Planning Board had all new members as she did not recognize anyone. Douglas Hill replied that he had been on the Board 4 years and Don Duhaime longer than that. Stu Lewin stated that he had been a Board member for one year. Douglas Hill noted that the Chairman was not in attendance tonight. Pat Monbouquette replied that she did remember the Chairman. Mike Pavesi stated that he did not feel that concerned parties here tonight were trying to prevent the applicants from developing their land but wanted the surrounding area kept in mind and assurances that the proposal was handled correctly. Douglas Hill noted that the Planning Board’s job was to make sure that such applications were done in accordance with the Zoning
Regulations. Michael Katsoupis added that its job was also to work for the betterment of the Town and community. Douglas Hill agreed.
Since Christine Quirk was not in a hurry to subdivide the land she agreed when the Board suggested that a site walk when more snow was gone would be a good idea. A site walk was scheduled for April 29, 2008 at 5:30 p.m.
Stu Lewin MOVED to adjourn the application of Thomas P. and Christine A. Quirk, Preliminary Hearing, Design Review, Major Subdivision, 8 Lots, Location: Clark Hill
Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/10, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to May 13, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
3. Discussion, re: 229 Joe English Road, Bilodeau cordwood business. (DRIVE BY PRIOR TO MEETING)
Mr. and Mrs. Bilodeau were present for this item. Douglas Hill stated to Mr. Bilodeau that the Board had received a complaint about his business and some Board members had driven by the site. He noted that while he had not personally driven by he had seen pictures of it and was surprised at the size of the operation. He added that to a fault the Board had assumed that Mr. Bilodeau would accept loads of wood into his site, cut it and send it out before more came in, not store so much of it at one time due to the residential area. He asked Mr. Bilodeau to clarify his intentions as the business as it was operating now was not what the Board thought they had approved. Mr. Bilodeau stated that he worked by himself at this business and the large piles were on
site because he was approved for two work areas that he would address year to year so that while he was working on one pile the other pile would be drying. Douglas Hill asked how many loads of wood were on the property. Mr. Bilodeau replied that each pile was approximately 75 to 100 cords of wood. Don Duhaime stated that the Board was in agreement that they had understood Mr. Bilodeau would be getting a load delivered and cut before accepting another load not accepting multiple loads before sending any out. Mr. Bilodeau explained that the wood needed to remain on site to have time to dry before cutting. Mrs. Bilodeau noted that the pile of wood by the front of the site at the time of the Board’s site walk the previous year that was cut and split was the same amount of wood as the uncut pile at the back of the site. Don Duhaime questioned the wood that seemed to be on both sides of the upper section. Mr. Bilodeau replied that one of
those piles was for his personal use and the other was for the business. Don Duhaime asked if there was a way to decrease the piles. Mr. Bilodeau noted that the piles would not be as visible when the trees regained their leaves as it they were in the winter months. Mrs. Bilodeau noted that by the end of the summer both piles would be gone. Stu Lewin agreed that he was surprised at the size of the wood piles in contrast to the discussions at the hearings on the application and what was approved, especially the size of the pile by the road. Mr. Bilodeau stated that he had done all that was required of him on the plan and the Board had never stipulated how much wood he could accept on site. Douglas Hill stated that it looked more like a lumber storage business than a cordwood business and reiterated that this was a residential area. Mr. Bilodeau stated again that he had followed the plan. Douglas Hill stated
that there seemed to be a gray area between what Mr. Bilodeau proposed and what the Board thought they approved. Dave Woodbury noted that according to the terms of the permit it was Mr. Bilodeau with his chainsaw operating this business and it seemed to him that he currently had stored more wood than he could process. He asked Mr. Bilodeau what he produced in cords on average. Mr. Bilodeau replied that he had only gotten 30 cords split due to the heavy snows and in consideration that this was not his full time job, therefore, he had a limited number of hours that he could do it. He added that he could not accept any more wood until he had processed what was on site due to the size and width of the work areas. Mr. Bilodeau thought that the seasoned wood would be ready in May or June of this year for delivery. He added that customers did not come to his site, he made deliveries only. Dave Woodbury asked when it would be fair of the Board to
ask him if he had met his 100 cord processing for the year in accordance with his inflow/outflow plan. Mr. Bilodeau replied that he intended to be able to process 100 cords in a year. Douglas Hill noted that if the piles were not visible there would not be an issue. He read from minutes of one of Mr. Bilodeau’s hearings for the application: “…He added that the wood would be hauled in every 2 to 3 weeks…” Douglas Hill asked how Mr. Bilodeau thought he could address the situation to appease all parties concerned. Mr. Bilodeau replied that he had worked his upper pile this winter since that was the closest one to his neighbors but he could start working on the front pile now even though it would not leave the site until next winter. Douglas Hill stated that he would not have approved 200 cords of wood being on the property. Mr. Bilodeau stated that the number of cords allowed on the property was never
discussed during the application’s hearings. Douglas Hill asked what amount the Bilodeaus would be satisfied with on site. Mrs. Bilodeau replied that she liked the amount they had. Douglas Hill stated that the current inventory could be considered what a commercial site would hold. Mr. Bilodeau reiterated that the Board had never put a limit on how much wood he could have on site. Don Duhaime recalled that discussions during the application hearings had noted a truck delivery (7 or 8 cords) every 2 to 3 weeks. Dave Woodbury clarified that this was a part time occupation for Mr. Bilodeau, therefore, he did not know how many hours he could spend cutting. Stu Lewin agreed with Douglas Hill in that he too would never have approved that amount of wood on site. Douglas Hill added that the wood on site was too much for the residential area it was in and the Board took that very much into consideration when they approved such
businesses. Mrs. Bilodeau noted that when the Board site walked the property there had been at least 100 cords of wood split and stacked by the front of the road.
Mr. Bilodeau stated that he could start cutting the green wood at the front pile and bring in half as much wood next year, working that pile through the winter and working the rear pile in the summer. The Coordinator asked the Board if they felt Mr. Bilodeau’s offer was palatable given that he was only approved for 2 work areas and one of his piles was for his own personal use. Don Duhaime questioned if a pile of logs 20’ high presented a safety issue. Mr. Bilodeau noted that when he finished cutting for the day he pulled loose logs down from the pile with his truck so that nothing would shift. Dave Woodbury stated that he would expect to see the number of cords sold that he proposed by this summer which would be one year after his plan’s approval. Mrs. Bilodeau noted that seasoned cordwood usually sold in the months of July and August so the Board was more likely to see an inventory difference in October or November. The Board agreed that Mr. Bilodeau should come back
to speak with the Board in July, 2008, so that they could assess his progress with decreasing the wood piles on his site.
Stu Lewin asked if the pile in work area #1 at the front of the site was fully contained in its work area. Mr. Bilodeau replied that there was still room to put wood on either side of the pile. Douglas Hill stated that the Board would contact Mr. Bilodeau by mail as to when he should come before the Board for a review of his progress. Don Duhaime asked if Mr. Bilodeau’s offer as to how he could rework the piles meant that the pile in work area #1 would decrease from 100 cords to 50. Mr. Bilodeau replied that it would decrease to approximately 50 to 75 cords and that he would work on it throughout the winter. He added that when he received more wood in the next time he would cut it and split it right away. Douglas Hill thanked Mr. Bilodeau for
coming in.
At 9:30 p.m. Don Duhaime MOVED to adjourn. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| 
