TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of October 14, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Peter Hogan, Don Duhaime, alternate, Mark Suennen, and; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Stephanie Strauss, Angela Fitzpatrick, Mark and Christine Bilodeau, Brandy Mitroff, Brian Roy, Dean Glow, Jim Bath, Andre Araujo, Ray Shea, Christine Quirk, Barry Charrest, Wayne Charrest, Diane Drake, Deborah Jewers, Katherine Kachavos, Michael Katsoupis, George St. John, Ellen Kambol, Vera Magruder, Patricia Monbouquette, Mark Monbouquette, Joe Reed, Kary Jencks ***
Discussion with Mark and Christine Bilodeau re: Cordwood Home Business
The Chairman apologized for the scheduling conflict that had occurred at the last meeting where the Bilodeau’s time slot was inadvertently skipped and thanked them for coming in this evening. He stated that there continued to be a “disconnect” between what the Board thought they had approved and what the applicant thought he had described to them. The Chairman noted that he had recently learned that the pile of cordwood at the front of the site had decreased significantly in size. The Bilodeau’s clarified that the front pile was now gone. Peter Hogan clarified that he viewed the site the night before and that there was a pile of wood, not very tall, in the upper portion of the lot which was noted on the plan to be the Bilodeau’s personal
supply and that in the front there was a pile approximately 6’ tall by 20’ long, not large by any stretch. He wished to note that this was not approved as a home business because if it was there could be no outside storage but that the site was Zoned “Residential-Agricultural”, therefore, there were looser standards involved. Secondly, Peter Hogan clarified that the applicant had previously stated that he did not anticipate more than a year’s worth of log storage on site in the specified areas and in looking at the size of the piles that had been on site over the past few months it had seemed impossible to most of the Board that what was there could have been processed by now but it had been. He noted that it was now the request of the Board that the piles not be as visibly large on site again as this is what had caused the concern of some Board members although he himself was not one of them. The Chairman stated that the pile
at the front of the site had been more of the issue, not the one at the back. Christine Bilodeau noted that at the time of the Board’s drive-by of the site (7/22/08) they had commented that the piles had not reduced in size when in fact they were half gone. Peter Hogan noted that the pile’s appearance may have lent itself to the shape that it was at that time. Mark Bilodeau noted that the pile at the front of the site by the road may have looked bigger than it was because of the uphill nature of the road they lived on and further noted that it was cleared in 6 months time. Peter Hogan stated that the Bilodeau’s had the unique ability to make the pile look big or not look big and added that the site should not resemble a log processing plant so how the Bilodeau’s chose to accomplish that was by their best judgment. He noted that if the site was called into question by another complaint then the Board would have to revisit the
Site Plan.
The Chairman asked if there were ways to keep the height of the log piles under 6’ in height, for example, by splitting their grapple deliveries. Mark Bilodeau replied that he was thinking 10’ would be good as the pile could not be higher than a log truck (13’6”) since the driver stood on the back of the truck to unload. Peter Hogan stated that based on the slope of the road the Bilodeaus could manipulate the perceived height of the pile. Gordon Carlstrom stated that the Bilodeaus should be able to keep the pile around 10’ in height given the slope of the land where it was stored. Mark Bilodeau stated that he did not have a problem with this. Gordon Carlstrom asked about the hours of operation per the plan since they had received several complaints that the
hours were being abused. Mark Bilodeau replied that he thought they were 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Sundays. Douglas Hill asked the number of truckloads that equaled a fully loaded site of cordwood for the Bilodeaus at the time of the complaint. Mark Bilodeau replied that he had 150 cords of woods on site last season when fully stocked. Christine Bilodeau clarified that this was approximately 14 truckloads. Douglas Hill asked if they had to bring in that many at one time. Christine Bilodeau noted that they burned 7 cords annually for their personal use so any less than what they were having delivered would not be financially beneficial for them. She added that the piles looked very high last season because they had such a bad winter and spent more time plowing and clearing versus splitting, otherwise the piles would have been worked on more consistently.
Gordon Carlstrom felt that the Bilodeaus needed to schedule their load deliveries better and operate within the parameters of their Site plan. Mark Bilodeau stated that he would be working on the pile at the front of the site through the upcoming winter. Christine Bilodeau added that this would be the case, weather permitting. Gordon Carlstrom thought that there should be a specified limit to how much could be delivered at one time. Mark Bilodeau replied that his Site Plan stated that one year’s worth could be on site and that he had showed that he could compromise by starting on the pile at the front of the road after their last meeting with the Board. He added that he would maintain pile heights of 10’ going forward. Gordon Carlstrom asked how the grapple deliveries were
scheduled. Mark and Christine Bilodeau replied that everything was delivered before the winter season but that they could be spaced out. Peter Hogan clarified that the Bilodeaus had agreed to try and stagger the deliveries, keep the pile heights down and operate within the hours of their Site Plan. He noted that the Bilodeaus site was not in a residential neighborhood, it was in a “Residential-Agricultural” District, so they could put a chicken coop on their site if they wanted to. Gordon Carlstrom noted that it would need to be less than 100 s.f. Douglas Hill stated that the main point was that other people lived around them, therefore, he agreed to a point but argued that the site was still in a residential neighborhood. He added that while he had no problem with someone cutting cordwood on their property he felt that when it was done to the extent that it affected a neighbor’s home value then there was an issue. Peter
Hogan noted that those neighbors did not have the right to not be offended. The Chairman summarized that the Bilodeaus had their parameters and had heard the concerns and should proceed with that information. Douglas Hill stresses that the Bilodeaus should keep in mind the fact that they had neighbors. Mark Bilodeau replied that this was why he submitted a Site Plan in the first place and did not understand why people were complaining. Christine Bilodeau noted that they even cut their personal wood for their use within the parameters of the Site Plan.
Christine Bilodeau asked to add that their neighbor who had complained to the Board about the wood, Heather Alton, had still not sold her house and their piles had been gone for three months. She asked in that regard if there were any laws in the Town against pools without fencing. Peter Hogan advised that if the Bilodeaus had an issue with this they should not concern themselves or take it up with the Building Inspector. Christine Bilodeau replied that this issue did not bother her and she planned to do nothing about it. Douglas Hill stated that this was not a Planning Board issue. Mark Bilodeau clarified that he would have no further issue unless his cordwood piles were over 10’. Peter Hogan advised that the piles should be kept to a reasonable height and while nothing was
specified on the plan the Bilodeaus should not get themselves to the point to where the Board would have to note a height on the plan. He asked where the measurement should be taken from. Douglas Hill replied that the measurement would start at ground level. Peter Hogan felt that the Board was working themselves into an administrative nightmare. Mark Bilodeau stated that he was seeking some type of assurance. Peter Hogan stated that if complaints were filed as long as the piles were found to be at 10’ or less they would not pursue them.
Meeting with Small Scale Planned Commercial District Committee
Present for this discussion were Committee members Angela Fitzpatrick and Stephanie Strauss. The Board had received copies of the draft document. The Chairman began by stating that Permitted Use definition #13 Hotels referenced “sleeping rooms” and Motels referenced “rooms”. He thought they should both say “sleeping rooms” or that a term could either be taken out of one or put in both. The Chairman stated that for #15 “Personal Service Business” he did not think that the “eg’s” were needed. He clarified that for Special Exception definition #4 the Committee was looking to break out “Vehicular Sales/Auto Repair Facilities” into two separate definitions. Stephanie Strauss
replied that was correct and that they were waiting to address all corrections after tonight’s meeting. The Chairman stated that his last specific comment regarded #15 “Research and Development Facility” quoted as : “…shall not produce significant amounts of hazardous waste. Any hazardous waste shall be disposed of according to state or federal guidelines". He asked what was “significant” and why this definition specifically called out State and Federal Guidelines while the other definitions speaking about hazardous waste only said: “…best management practices….” Stephanie Strauss replied that in most cases a license was involved so they would be under Federal guidelines to begin with. The Chairman stated that it was just a point of being consistent in the terminology. Angela Fitzpatrick agreed and noted that using the phrase “…best management practices…” was
probably the best way to go. Don Duhaime (who also sat on the Committee) noted that in Research and Development Facilities the Committee had been considering things like mercury and nuclear density machines that were one step higher than what State requirements would be. The Chairman felt that keeping the phrasing was stating the obvious and could be taken out while not losing anything from the definition.
The Chairman stated that while it was good to have definitions throughout the piece there were parts were they could be omitted and nothing would be lost. Gordon Carlstrom asked about the issue with “Gas Stations” versus “Fuel Storage” as this had come up in an informational session recently. The Coordinator (who also sat on the Committee) replied that in her research “Fuel Storage” and businesses tied to it were placed in the Industrial District, therefore, it did not come up for discussion in the Committee’s work. She noted that the definition for “Auto Service Station” was, however, included. Angela Fitzpatrick noted that they had modernized this definition to include convenience stores. Peter Hogan
stated that while there were “food with gas” services there was rarely ever “auto repair with gas” anymore. He added that anything that had to do with fuel storage should have a stricter view that went beyond best management practices as it posed a risk to the environment. Don Duhaime noted that the State was very critical on where these facilities were placed also. Stephanie Strauss replied that this was why “Auto Service Station” and “Vehicular Repair” would be two separate definitions in the final draft. Peter Hogan felt that any reference to sales should be eliminated from “Vehicular Repair” so that when an applicant came in for Site Plan Review they were clear on what was allowed in the District.
The Chairman felt that the Committee had done a good job with the reasoning behind the definitions. Angela Fitzpatrick replied that this was all due to the Coordinator’s efforts. The Chairman asked if there were any other comments on the definitions from the Board. Peter Hogan felt that the more obvious a definition read the less likely it was to be interpreted in a manipulative way to the applicant’s benefit. The Chairman asked when the Committee’s next meeting would be held. The Coordinator replied that it was scheduled for November 3, 2008.
The Board next reviewed the Committee’s Commercial Design Guidelines draft. The Chairman asked that a date be put on the cover page and added that, stylistically, the list of sections included could become a Table of Contents on the back of the cover page. He added that he would also change the tense in certain sentences and would leave his markups with the Coordinator. The Chairman also thought that a working summary into each page would be a good idea. Stephanie Strauss noted that this was mostly done for the Planning Board’s benefit and the sections themselves contained all that information. The Coordinator noted that for applicants designing plans it was done this way so that they would read all the material versus just the summary. The
Chairman moved on to the section on parking and site signage noting that he removed the instances of the word “should” for consistency. He questioned the text that was in blocks at the top of each page wondering if it was necessary given the complimentary bullet points. Stephanie Strauss replied that the blocked text was added after the bullets were done but if all the information had been covered in the bullets they would have had to take it out of the bullets to put it in the top block. She noted that in the two examples the Chairman referred to the Committee thought that the bullets were all the important points. The Chairman felt that in regard to the section on Landscaping and Lighting the first bullet should be that the Board would require a plan, not the last section in the item’s text block. Douglas Hill agreed. Mark Suennen agreed that the Planning Board requirements should be mentioned consistently at the
beginning of each piece. The Chairman stated that in the section on Roof Design the terms “should” and “shall” were used interchangeably and he felt that these words meant different things, therefore, “should” would be a better term to keep. Stephanie Strauss replied that this would be corrected and was a mistake on the Committee’s part.
Douglas Hill stated that he thought the Committee had done a great job on the information presented this evening. He asked if their intent was to leave a lot of discretion to the Planning Board regarding proper facades in dealing with proposals from commercial site builders. Stephanie Strauss replied that given that fact that the Board was without any guidelines regarding Commercial development this draft was a way to codify the opinions of the Board to keep an applicant in line with what was preferred. She noted that it was not a legal document or written in such a format to be adopted as a regulation but rather a guide for the Board. The Chairman asked how and where these guidelines would fit, be it in Zoning, Subdivision regulations, etc. The Coordinator
replied that this was a document the Board could choose to adopt in different ways and that one option was to make it into a regulation, although most towns did not, or to use it in such a way so that applicants knew of the perceived “threat” of going against it, i.e., their applications might not get approved. She clarified that it could be a document adopted by the Planning Board much like the Driveway Regulations, while not being a regulation. Douglas Hill asked what the case would be if a commercial developer came to the Board with their attorney and made a case that they did not have to follow the guidelines because they were not a law. The Coordinator replied that most towns have guidelines like these, therefore, applicants/developers are used to referencing them. Don Duhaime added that the document basically stated that you meet certain guidelines based on your surroundings and keeping things consistent. The Chairman noted that
Douglas Hill’s point was a good one where the Board could say anything with this piece but because it was not a law there would be no way to enforce it. Angela Fitzpatrick stated that while the document itself had not teeth the Board could hold an applicant to the fact that they may not have followed any of its guidelines for their plan and, therefore, would not approve based on the Site Plan Review Regulations. Peter Hogan stated that somewhere in the document it needed to say that an applicant must conform, not should conform. He offered common driveways as an example where there was nothing that said they were not allowed to have one and then several Board members end up looking for a reason why an applicant should not, therefore, a document like this should provide the tools to say that a proposal must fit its surroundings as an example of newer alternative planning. Stephanie Strauss stated that if the Board wanted to use the terms “must” and “shall” and possibly use the
document as a regulation then it would need to be rewritten. Douglas Hill felt that as long as the document stressed that proposals must conform to their surroundings would set precedent and should be acceptable. Peter Hogan noted that to a certain extent discretion needed to be taken away from the Planning Board and “should” did not mean “have to”, therefore, “must” needed to be included in the terminology. Stephanie Strauss stated that as a Planning Board document the Board needed to decide its legal status, as she was not sure what their discretion was based upon. Douglas Hill noted that if it was not stated there were no rules. He thought the document was great but questioned where it was best used. The Chairman asked the Coordinator where the document would best fit or be referenced. The Coordinator suggested that the document could be referenced in the Site Plan Review Regulations. Peter Hogan
stated that he thought phrasing would say something like "…building design needs to conform with the guidelines laid out in this document. Douglas Hill noted that the document could work incentive-wise where the more an applicant stuck to the guidelines the smoother the application process. Angela Fitzpatrick stated that the Committee felt that the existence of the document itself was an incentive where as the more compliant an applicant was with the guidelines the easier they might sail through the process. Douglas Hill stated that from a businessperson’s standpoint the first thing to think of is whether your plan is financially viable and secondly, is it aesthetically pleasing to attract customers. He added that a businessperson wanted as much as they could do for as little funding as possible and had attorneys that could assure them of what they were required to do by law. Douglas Hill further added that what a planning board would
add as guidelines for aesthetics could, for example, add another $30K to a project and if they were not required to do it by law they will not. Stephanie Strauss asked where the Committee should go from here, noting that they could write a language for the Board that was more akin to a regulation if that was something they wanted, however, the question would be where to put it. The Coordinator thought that it might be a good idea to have the document reviewed by Town Counsel, as she was not sure of its legal teeth as it stood. Douglas Hill agreed that the piece was written ambiguously. Angela Fitzpatrick noted that this was done on purpose. The Board agreed that Town Counsel should review the documents.
Mark Suennen stated that at times in the document the word “garish” was used and he felt that a more appropriate term should be considered since garish was a somewhat subjective term. He went on to say in the Landscaping section that he would like to see the guidelines encourage the eradication of invasive species and encourage more use of Low Impact Development techniques, raingardens, etc. He noted this was included elsewhere but should be specifically included in the landscaping section. Mark Suennen noted that in the Site Lighting section the term 'qualified professional' was referenced as who would design the lighting and he felt that a more defined title was needed as a PE, for example, could be considered as such and might not be the best or most
appropriate source in making those decisions. Angela Fitzpatrick replied that their point in this piece was not to encourage contractors installing simple bulbs but to allow lighting engineers or architects to be able to design the plan. Mark Suennen commented that he though it would be difficult to enforce “light spillover” and suggested that a percentage of allowable spillover could be added to the guidelines. He also wondered if foot-candle measurements should be included in the parking lot lighting section rather than simply saying "sufficient". Mark Suennen questioned whether plastic was a material included in preferred Site Signage which listed wood, metal and granite, etc., noting that plastic signs could be nice looking. He went on to say that parking promoted in the rear of a building might conflict with ADA Regulations as they supported parking near entrances. Stephanie Strauss acknowledged that this was a tricky
site planning issue but pointed out that the document allowed for entrances on many sides of the building and did not require that parking be in the rear and the entrance be in the front. Angela Fitzpatrick stated the design would depend on the site and the location. The Chairman asked that the Committee return with a final draft for another meeting. Stephanie Strauss replied that this would be done. The Board thanked the Committee for their input and hard work.
McCURDY DEVELOPMENT, LLC Adjourned from 9/09/08
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/42 Lots
Location: McCurdy Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 96
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Brian Roy of Cuoco and Cormier, and the applicant Dean Glow. No abutters were present. An interested party was Brandy Mitroff.
Brian Roy, PE, stated that a site walk was conducted with members of the Board on October 4, 2008. He added that they had received two comment letters from the Town Engineer dated October 8, and October 14, 2008 and asked how he should communicate, procedurally, with the Town Engineer be it directly or through the Planning Department. Douglas Hill thought that direct contact would be acceptable and appropriate. The Board agreed. Brian Roy replied that he would copy any correspondence to the Board. The Chairman noted that Town Counsel had reviewed the Slope and Drainage Easements, Warranty Deed for New Roads and other legal documents and he could see no reason that this letter could not be released to the applicants.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to release Town Counsel’s letter dated 9/22/08, to McCurdy Development, LLC. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Gordon Carlstrom asked about drainage flow increases. Brian Roy replied that they had gone through the State process on this and that the flows were localized in the watershed where they had one release to the south on site and 2 to the north (at the front of the site) where the runoff went across the proposed road to a brook and tied in with a channel. He added that the net result was a decrease in runoff. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the net flow off the site was a net increase or decrease in velocity. Brian Roy replied that for the entire project it was a decrease, noting that they did not calculate by velocity but by rates of runoff. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he asked the question because any increases of flow could affect waters downstream. Brian Roy
explained that the plan had several detention basins and the overall flow was redirected. Gordon Carlstrom noted that in regard to the proposed detention basins the Road Agent was looking for a defined access path for maintenance purposes. Brian Roy replied that this would be rectified on the plan.
Peter Hogan stated that the applicant had requested a waiver to the requirement of a -3% where the proposed road intersected with McCurdy Road, which the Board was not prepared to grant. Brian Roy stated that he had prepared copies of a small exhibit, which he distributed to the Board that reviewed the engineering and explained what the plan would look like without the waiver. He put up a larger copy on the presentation easel and noted where the proposed “Lorden Road” met McCurdy Road. Brian Roy recalled that a mainstream channel for existing wetlands was pointed out on the site walk and since it was on both sides of the proposed road there was no option of shifting it, therefore the applicant came through the narrowest point and tied in to MCurdy where it was
at a 9% grade. He added that at the beginning of this process a couple of years ago the applicants had discussed with the Board this original access proposal, however, they were told to change it. Brian Roy reviewed the fact that the Town required a 3% tangent away from the road grade for 75’ and holding the edge of pavement for the first 75’ to the first red dot on the plan by using a negative grade would require a 3.5’ cut. He added that going with the full -3% would be a considerable cut and with wetlands on both sides this would put the road well below the water table. He offered three scenarios form the lowest to highest percentages that the applicant felt were workable with the first being 4% which would create a vertical curve length of 350’, requiring a “broken back” to get back to grade at 10’ below the culvert. Brian Roy stated that at 6% the vertical curve length became 100’ longer and tying in
with the grade was still below the culvert. He added that using 10% grade would bring the curve back to the identical spot at a fixed point and fixed slope and by holding the K value at 49 they ended up 8’-9’ below the culvert. Brian Roy noted that in attempting to engineer the flattest intersection possible, using the minimum K, the best they could calculate was +1% which met grade at station #2+50 and for the first 150’ would still be in cut and be adjacent to a wetland. He further noted that underdrains would still be necessary for this scenario and stressed that meeting a -3% grade was not possible as it would mean that you would be diving downward as the ground was sloping upward. Brian Roy asked for clarification on the intent of the -3% requirement and noted that if it was based on drainage concerns their proposal of the 1% example was a workable plan and that it would not cause water runoff onto McCurdy where it intersected.
He added that they were trying to meet minimum AASHTO curve tangent requirements in their design also.
Douglas Hill asked the grade on McCurdy at the proposed intersection with “Lorden Rd”. Brian Roy replied that it was 7.5% to 8%. Brian Roy noted that the State had a requirement to go back 20' from an intersection at 2% in order to preserve ditchlines. Peter Hogan stated that by his understanding it had to do with water flow and traffic. Brian Roy replied that he would assume that if necessary they would provide additional culverts to address such issues. Douglas Hill noted that there would be times where runoff would enter MCurdy at the intersection such as snow melt between plowing. Brian Roy agreed and noted that a worst case scenario might be melting after an ice storm but that even a negative grade could produce puddling. Douglas Hill asked how stopping distance
would be handled given the grade issue at the intersection.. Brian Roy replied that they would try for a fairly low transition and noted that most town’s required 1% to 3% grade transitions, Nashua was up to 6% and Wilton 10%. He went on to add that Merrimack was 2%, Pelham was 2% to 3% + or – and Hollis had just enacted a -2% for 20’ requirement to mirror DOT. Peter Hogan stated that there had been a lot of discussion on the intersection grade topic recently between the Board, Town Engineer and Road Agent and all were in favor of the -3% grade, therefore, based on what these Town professionals were advising the Board he did not see how they could consider a waiver. Brian Roy stated that he did not know how they could design a -3% grade with the natural contour of the land rising. Peter Hogan noted that every acre of land in New Boston was not buildable. Brian Roy stated that he understood the Board’s rationale and could
look at the plan again with the Town Engineer’s input, however, he felt that it was impossible to design a -3% grade as the geometry was not there. The Chairman asked if there was no possibility of getting a negative percentage that would not put the road below the level of the wetlands on either side. Brian Roy replied that this would be dependent on what point on McCurdy Road the Board wanted them to enter from. He added that as he flattened the incline the curve got bigger and from -1% to 6 they would be at 350' and run into the top of a large open bottomed culvert (required for maintaining clear spans for wildlife) proposed. Douglas Hill asked about the other end of Lorden Road at the Susan Road intersection. Brian Roy replied that at the other entrance the best they could offer was -1.15% which would give the same geometry but he knew that -3% was unworkable here also as it would not meet AASHTO standards for tangent curve lengths.
Douglas Hill stated that he would not be willing to go against the Town Engineer’s recommendation unless they reviewed the information. Gordon Carlstrom added that the Highway Department and Road Committee should also be consulted, as the Town would not want water in the roadway that would create issue on the stopping pad. Douglas Hill added that the Town Engineer’s opinion was also warranted. Peter Hogan stated that they did not need the Town Engineer’s opinion as the rules and regulation that defined this topic had been written very recently. He added that in his opinion this was not a grantable waiver and he saw no need for negotiation. Peter Hogan further added that they had countless meetings with the Town Engineer on this topic and many decisions about Susan Road and sight distances, therefore, he felt that it would be fairly callous to grant a waiver based on information given by those agencies. He stated that the
applicant needed to make their plan meet the Town’s Subdivision Regulations.
Don Duhaime asked if the Town or State took precedence in the consideration of requiring wildlife crossings that were designed to utilize drainage issues and further asked if a box culvert could be used instead of the open bottom arch. Brian Roy first explained that if a box culvert were allowed it would need to be buried and the stream bed rebuilt and that in using an open arch design they were required to meet width and height requirements so as not to disturb the stream channel. He added that a type of turtle, snake and bug had been identified in the area and in 2006 the Army Corp of Engineers had adopted the MA DES culvert sizings for channel widths and clear area (a culvert big enough so as not to resemble a cave to a small animal and discourage entry). Don Duhaime
questioned this philosophy since animals normally traveled in residential areas at night. Brian Roy replied that this was established by the Federal Government. He added that the Planning Board, Conservation Commission, NHDES, Wetlands Bureau, Fish and Wildlife, Army Corp (Archeological) River and Watershed, Army Corp of Engineers (now the regulatory authority over U.S. waters), EPA, NPDES Phase II, were some of the various entities that a subdivision plan had to answer to. Brian Roy noted that in Massachusetts the first approving authority was the town but in New Hampshire it was the DES.
Douglas Hill asked if the through connection to Susan Road had been worked out. Brian Roy replied that the two land owners involved had originally agreed to have the road pushed through after which the Dredge and Fill Permit and Alteration of Terrain was acquired so that the lots on either side could be developed, however, at the point of State Subdivision Approval the other owner backed out of the subdivision, therefore, he was out of the equation at this point. The Chairman asked about phasing for the plan. Brian Roy replied that at some point this would be estimated and an option would be to build the two ends of the road and eventually meet in the middle, do a temporary cul-de-sac, etc.
The Chairman asked Brian Roy if they had received the Town Engineer’s letter and Brian Roy replied that they had. He noted that they had not received anything from Town Counsel. The Chairman replied that the Board had just voted to release Town Counsel’s letter to the applicant and they would be receiving a copy. The Chairman stated that the -3% grade requirement at the intersection needed to be addressed and at best the Town Engineer’s input would be warranted. Brian Roy asked how much AASHTO standards could be waived. The Chairman and Gordon Carlstrom both replied that the applicant should get in touch with the Town Engineer. Brian Roy stated that he would submit the design to the Town Engineer and wait for more input from the Board
and the Road Agent. Brandy Mitroff asked if the plan would be presented to the Road Committee and where it stood in meeting the regulations. The Chairman replied that the Board was looking for dialogue with the Town departments behind the Regulations to see if there were other options with which they would be satisfied. Gordon Carlstrom added that AASHTO standards would also be considered. Peter Hogan felt that going in this direction would put the Road Committee in the hot seat. Gordon Carlstrom disagreed and felt that it would allow the Board to know if there were any sensible alternatives to the issue. Peter Hogan replied that sequentially it did not make sense and with the applicant physically in front of these departments seeking an answer they may not feel comfortable with the situation and might rather filter their answers through the Planning Board in a non-committal way. The Chairman replied that as was the procedure with the
Technical Review Committee these departments should submit their opinions to the Planning Board via a letter.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of McCurdy Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 42 Lots, Location: McCurdy Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 96, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to November 11, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 8:15 p.m. Peter Hogan needed to leave the meeting. The Planning Board took a 5 minute break.
The Chairman appointed alternate Mark Suennen as a full voting member in Peter Hogan’s absence.
SHAKY POND DEVELOPMENT, LLC
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/17 Lots
and one open space lot
Location: Susan Road
Tax Map/Lot #15/15
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Ray Shea of Sandford Survey and Engineering who represented the applicant. Abutters and interested parties present were Andre Araujo and Mark Monbouquette. The Chairman asked that abutters and interested parties please hold their comments until Ray Shea finished his opening presentation at which time they could state their name and address for the record prior to their questions or comments.
Ray Shea stated that this was a proposed subdivision of a 109 acre parcel connecting on the south side of Susan Road with a proposed road named “Shaky Pond Lane” with 17 lots and one 59 acre lot (a conservation lot that would not be built upon). He stated that Susan Road ran off Carriage Lane and that last year they were before the Board for preliminary sessions. He explained that at that time Shaky Pond Lane was proposed in the same location but was a loop road that ran off Susan Road with 26 lots and a 10 acre conservation lot in the southeast corner. He noted that the Board had agreed to waive the maximum cul-de-sac length in order to eliminate two wetland crossings and in return they eliminated 8 lots, increased the size of the conservation lot, and
received preliminary approval for the layout before the Board tonight. Ray Shea added that the road layout was still the same coming off Susan Road with two wetland crossings and going west to east. He noted that the site sloped towards the road in an easterly direction and that large open culverts were proposed. Ray Shea further noted that there would be approximately 5,000 to 6,000 s.f. of wetland impacts. He stated that the applicant had received all State permits and that one common driveway was proposed for a front and backlot with all other lots having individual driveways. Ray Shea added that a proposed cistern which had been a condition of waiving the maximum cul-de-sac length was proposed at the half way point along the road and that fire sprinklers would also be installed in the homes. He noted that the Conservation Commission had requested that a gravel parking area be constructed at the end of the cul-de-sac to go with the 59 acre
undeveloped lot (deeded to the Town as a condition of the preliminary approval). Ray Shea further noted that there were many deed restrictions on this lot, which was intended for passive recreation use. He added that because it abutted the Air Force Tracking Station it would be of value to surrounding wildlife and open space. He added that all State approvals had been received, a road entry permit was submitted along with a CUP application for two wetland impacts, Environmental Impact Study, Vernal Pool Study (required by the EPA) and Fiscal Impact Study, and a Drainage Report (no increase in offsite drainage). Ray Shea explained that because SNHPC had recently done a Traffic Study for the area the applicant was submitting a Traffic “letter” that gave basic information such as number of trips per day.
Douglas Hill asked if the shared driveway was designed along the property line between the lots. Ray Shea replied that it went in at the 50’ strip and was common on the backlot then split off although he could possibly design it to go with the lot line and would review that option. Douglas Hill clarified that this connection to Susan Road was also a condition for the approval consideration of One Chestnut Hill’s 8 lot subdivision, Bussiere’s 13 lot subdivision, and LeBlanc’s 8 lot subdivision. He asked about the bonding for the connecting road. Ray Shea replied that the three land owners involved had conferred so by the spring the road would hopefully be bonded and under construction. The Chairman asked about the stub that remained from
when Shaky Pond Lane was proposed to have two entrances. It was noted that nothing was constructed - this area was simply shown on the plan. Ray Shea replied that the two lot owners on each side of this area should be able to petition to cut it down the middle with each having a half.
Douglas Hill asked if the Stormwater Management Plans were submitted. The Coordinator replied that they were. Douglas Hill asked about the bus stop for the subdivision. The Coordinator replied that this topic was part of the discussion with the Technical Review Committee and noted that they had already alluded that a wide area would be needed at the intersection so that the bus could stop in the road but the children would have a safe spot to stand. She added that she thought some clarification was needed on that point, as she was not sure why the intersection itself would not suffice.
The Chairman stated that the Town’s cul-de-sac design requirements were in the process of being updated and asked Ray Shea if he was aware of this. Ray Shea replied that he had seen some information regarding the sizing changes regarding diameters and noted that the plan was already in line with these specifications at 150’. The Chairman then asked about offsite improvement calculations. The Coordinator replied that these numbers still needed to be calculated with the Road Agent. Ray Shea noted that he thought that other lots for subdivisions in the area had been slated to make a contribution per lot to offsite improvements. Douglas Hill inquired about the open box culverts proposed. Ray Shea replied that the State did not want full box
culverts as they tended to allow material to be washed off the bottom so arch or open bottom culverts were preferred and that they would have no issues with grade for the installations.
Mark Suennen stated that he was not a member of the Planning Board at the time of the plan’s preliminary approval and would like to view the site if possible. The Chairman stated that he would go with him if another site walk could be arranged. A site walk was scheduled for, Tuesday, October 21, 2008, at 3:30 p.m. with a meeting point at the end of Susan Road.
Interested party and Susan Road resident Andre Araujo stated that he liked the proposal and asked about clear cutting on the open space lot. Ray Shea replied that he could provide Mr. Araujo a copy of the deed restrictions to be placed on this lot by the Conservation Commission’s attorney. He noted that there may be selective foresting but the main purpose of the lot was for passive recreation. Interested party Brandy Mitroff clarified that selective foresting would not get to the point of clear cutting. Ray Shea replied that was correct and that foresting would be appropriately managed. Andre Araujo inquired about the recent Bedford Road Traffic Study done by SNHPC. Ray Shea replied that the Study was in draft form at this point. Brandy
Mitroff asked if offsite road improvements would be calculated based on this Study. The Chairman replied that they would be but that this topic would be tabled until the Road Agent came up with a prioritized Town listing of roads needing upgrades.
Interested party Mark Monbouquette asked if any impact fees were associated with the 16 residential lots. Douglas Hill replied that they had looked at the criteria needed to impose such fees for subdivisions and found that at this point the criteria did not fit with the Town and that it was also based on a very stringent time line. Gordon Carlstrom added that this was why the Town sought offsite road improvements instead. Mark Monbouquette stated that there was a lot of development that had happened and was happening in Town which impacted the School with the burden borne by the tax payers. Gordon Carlstrom replied that when the Town looked into impact fees it worked out to approximately $1,500.00/per new house lot, therefore, they felt that the Town would get better
funding through offsite road improvements.
Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the application of Shaky Pond Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 17 Lots and one open space lot, Location: Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #15/15, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Mark Suennen seconded the motion.
Don Duhaime asked if accepting the application as complete would mean that the applicant would not be subject to offsite improvement contributions once the Road Agent complied his road upgrade listing. The Coordinator replied that the applicant would still be liable.
The motion PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the Board’s deadline for action was December 18, 2008.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application of Shaky Pond Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 17 Lots and one open space lot, Location: Susan Road, Tax Map/Lot #15/15, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to November 11, 2008, at 8:00 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
QUIRK, THOMAS P. AND CHRISTINE A.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/8 Lots
Location: Clark Hill Road
Tax Map/lot #7/10
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Ray Shea of Sandford Survey and Engineering, the applicant Christine Quirk and her son Barry and Wayne Charrest. Abutters and interested parties present were Diane Drake, Deborah & Mark Jewers, Vera Magruder, Mark Monbouquette, Joe Reed, Ellen Kambol, Patricia Monbouquette, Katie Kachavos, Brandy Mitroff, Michael Katsoupis, and George St. John.
Ray Shea stated that this was a proposed 8 lot subdivision of 41 acres on the south side of Clark Hill Road with 3,000’ of road frontage and lots ranging in size from 2.8 to 14 acres (1 being a backlot). He added that the plan received preliminary approval in May of 2008 and 3 shared driveways and two individual driveways were proposed versus 8 individual curb cuts. Ray Shea further added that individual Stormwater Management Plans had been done for each lot even though 5 of the lots had suitable building areas. He stated that the applicant had requested a waiver to the required studies (Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact), noting that they had received State Subdivision Approval (SSA) in May, 2008 and had no proposed wetland impacts, therefore, no required
Dredge and Fill Permit. Ray Shea noted that a site walk was done the previous spring when proposed driveways and lot corners were viewed.
The Chairman asked if the shared driveways proposed were on the property lines. Ray Shea explained that for one of the shared driveways the applicant proposed pushing the gate inward on an existing gravel access road to the campground they owned approximately 200’ feet and then off to the westerly lot and another 50’ to 100’ around wetlands to the lot’s building site. He noted that rather than constructing a new curb cut it seemed more sensible to use the beginning of the gravel access. Ray Shea added that the next shared driveway went through the middle of a 50’ strip but could be moved over to the lot line with the split still coming in under 100’. He noted that the next two lots had individual driveways and the easterly lots
shared a common access point and split at the lot line, therefore, was not a true shared driveway, more a shared curb cut, and met the lot line request.
The Chairman stated that 3 waivers had been requested by the applicant for Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. He asked if a one page Traffic letter could be considered. Ray Shea replied that he could do so and noted that the road appeared OK as far as capacity and had a fairly recent upgrade but he could submit such a letter noting the trips per day. Gordon Carlstrom wanted an assurance that the Stormwater Management Plans reflected no net increase in runoff on site. Ray Shea replied that the property sloped to the south and that there were significant wetlands in the back. He added that if 8 homes were constructed on the site there would be an increase unless there were detention ponds in back of each house otherwise this runoff would traverse
to the campground and past that point it was a half mile before the channels to undeveloped Town property almost out to Old Coach Road, therefore, about 4,500’ to the first culvert off the applicant’s land. Ray Shea did not think that there would be a big drainage issue at the larger wetlands areas as it should mitigate long before it would cause any impacts. Gordon Carlstrom asked Ray Shea to please submit these statements on paper to the Board for the record as a drainage study. He asked about the need for an Environmental Impact Study. Douglas Hill replied that he had no issues in waiving that requirement due to the preparation and submission of Individual Stormwater Management Plans for each lot. Gordon Carlstrom asked about building envelopes. Ray Shea replied that the Stormwater Management Plan for each lot provided for these and although they showed 50’ setbacks from wetlands on all the lots the true measure was more like
75’ to 100’. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the Fiscal Impact proposed seemed within the normal realm. The Chairman clarified that this meant that the Board just needed the previously requested one page Traffic letter. The Chairman brought up the subject of the Clark Hill Road realignment and the question of whether a deed on the portion of the site that was possibly encroached upon at the time of the alignment should be considered. Ray Shea replied that this subject was still open for discussion and noted that based on a 1989 survey done before the realignment no easements had been given but this still needed review. Mark Suennen stated that he was not a member of the Board at the time of the original site walk but would drive by the property and determine if he needed to walk it also.
The Chairman asked if there were any questions from abutters or interested parties. Diane Drake stated that she was an abutter listed on the Tax Map by her maiden name, Diane Coricelli, and that she owned a 36-acre parcel that ran along the backside of the campground and along its access road. She asked if the applicant was required to submit a National Heritage Bureau Review for this type of development. Ray Shea replied that he believed that was required as part of the State Subdivision Approval (SSA) but would check the file. Douglas Hill clarified that while the Town did not require one the State may. Diane Drake noted that when she bought her property, which also had frontage on Clark Hill Road, the road was realigned soon after and she needed a new plan
to reflect this as acknowledgement to the Town. Ray Shea clarified that the applicant’s plan reflected the road in its current location. Diane Drake stated that her main concern after walking her land with her husband and from information given to her by a logging company she had hired to do a select cut was that the Quirks may be on her property in several areas. She asked for a continuance of the meeting until it could be determined if this was the case as she would like the site re-flagged and possibly having a site walk done to assure that everything was in order with existing setbacks. The Planning Assistant retrieved a set of Tax Maps from the office and Ray Shea explained that the yellow area outlined on the plan was the applicant’s property, while Diane Drake’s property began at a noted stonewall. Diane Drake stated that some markers on her property were missing. Abutter Deborah Jewers (and sister to Diane Drake) noted a
corner section of property that she felt was causing drainage issues. Douglas Hill stated that if there was a question regarding flagging then the parties questioning this should have a surveyor re-flag. Gordon Carlstrom stressed that this was considered a civil matter. Diane Drake stated that she would like the corner in question clearly marked. Ray Shea noted that the property boundary was the existing stonewall. Douglas Hill noted that if the plan was approved it would be clearly marked. Deborah Jewers noted that the corner piece already had a drainage issue and felt that once it was further disturbed it would cause greater problems. Gordon Carlstrom noted that a Stormwater Management Plan had been submitted for each of the proposed lots. Douglas Hill added that a Drainage Study had also been required.
Diane Drake wished to make a final point regarding a tract of land opposite the site on Clark Hill Road that was owned by a woman who recently died. She noted that this woman should be honored for placing her land in a protective state of sorts and hoped that out of respect the surrounding land would also look as nice as it could regarding the proposed curb cuts. Douglas Hill noted that the Town did have requirements for driveway design and were very restrictive in that regard. Diane Drake added that she also worried about the bus stops being on curved areas of the road for this subdivision and safety issues. Douglas Hill replied that this would be taken into consideration. Ellen Kambol asked how the road to the campground would be addressed given that a part
of it would serve as an access for driveways and would it be paved, gated, etc. She explained that she was concerned as she saw many people going up the Class VI portion of Cochran Hill Road from the campground to Clark Hill Road in golf carts, getting stuck and going out on the road to turn around. Douglas Hill noted that driveways would now be involved and if the plan was approved the gate to the access road would be pushed back so that the lots could share the front portion of the access. Ellen Kambol clarified that this area would not be considered an extension of the campground. Douglas Hill replied that would not be the case. Ellen Kambol noted that she was concerned that the access road would become an internal road for the family and possibly create a scenario where traffic from the campground could then use it to enter onto Clark Hill Road. Ray Shea noted that when this access road was created it was intended as an emergency access and
that would be continued with this proposal. Douglas Hill agreed that the road should not be used for campground traffic.
Interested party Vera Magruder asked what action the Board could take after the subdivision was approved if there were issues like campground traffic on the access road and secondly why the Board was considering waiving a Traffic Study. The Chairman replied that the Traffic Study was not being waived and that the Board had asked for a count of trips per day which for the number of homes proposed was found to be in line. Vera Magruder stated that she was astounded at how many waivers the Board granted for applicants and noted that on Clark Hill Road most of the homes were located on the road, therefore, traffic should be seriously considered. The Chairman noted that the Traffic Study would provide the necessary information. Vera Magruder asked what uses were permitted
on the site, for example, would it be used for campers. The Chairman replied that this was not what the applicant was seeking approval for. Douglas Hill noted that the site could have single family or duplex homes. Gordon Carlstrom added that this site was no different in what types of homes were allowed than any other site developed in the Town. Vera Magruder felt that it was different in the sense that the subdivision could impact undeveloped land surrounding it. Gordon Carlstrom replied that this was why a drainage study was being done. Mark Monbouquette asked about the three waivers requested (Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies). Gordon Carlstrom explained that a unique feature of the site was the existing access road and the proposal of driveways off it and to avoid wetlands the applicant was asked to provide building envelopes, Stormwater Management Plans, Drainage plans and 200’ setbacks. Douglas Hill
clarified that the Town had recently approved 50’ setback requirements from wetlands. Interested party Joe Reed stated that he had only been a resident (on Clark Hill Road) since November 2007 and inquired about its recent re-alignment. Brandy Mitroff explained that in its original design it was a skinny road and the Town had to make a decision for safety purpose if they should take down some large trees and stonewalls or move the road and they chose the latter. Joe Reed stated that he too was concerned that traffic on the road was already an issue and would become worse with the subdivision. Douglas Hill replied that the Board would see what the Traffic Study yielded for results. He noted that the Board would require something, for example, offsite improvements, which work incrementally. Gordon Carlstrom clarified that, for example, a dirt road with no development, 1,000 acres and 50 proposed lots, the offsite improvement calculation would
be based on a sliding scale of potential development for the area and the total cost. Mark Monbouquette asked who would do the Traffic Study for the applicant. Ray Shea replied that he would submit a letter regarding Traffic to the Board that would have similar content to the Shaky Pond application’s letter which would note that the road was not experiencing any significant percentage of the capacity that it could handle. He added that while this letter would reference numbers there would be no specific traffic count done because that was not necessary for this proposal. Mark Monbouquette stated that he took issue with Ray Shea doing the study for the applicant as they were his client. The Chairman stated that it was no different than any other developer where an applicant paid them for a Traffic Study. Ray Shea noted that they did not falsify information to get approved. Mark Monbouquette replied that he would prefer that the Town
Engineer did the study. Mark Suennen noted that in his profession he wrote traffic studies on a daily basis and did not think that anything submitted by the applicant’s engineering firm would state any significant traffic impacts. Joe Reed stated that he was not necessarily concerned with the content of the study but the effect of the current and subsequent traffic on Clark Hill Road. The Chairman suggested that Joe Reed attend a Selectmen’s meeting as this was an issue over which the Planning Board did not have discretion. Joe Reed asked if the Planning board made recommendations to the Selectmen regarding traffic speeds on a road. Gordon Carlstrom replied that it would be based on issues that resulted from a Traffic Study, however, this subdivision had minimal impact traffic wise. Douglas Hill noted that the McCurdy subdivision application was halted until a regional Traffic Study was done, therefore, the Board did take these
reports into account and felt they were important. Vera Magruder noted that the combined lots of the Quirk and Clark Hill Trust subdivision applications equaled 20 lots which she felt would add significant traffic to the road. Mark Suennen stated that traffic impacts were not considered significant until you reached 40 lots. Vera Magruder stated that she was worried that there would be more accidents on an already challenging road. Diane Drake was worried about horses that walked along Clark Hill Road. The Chairman noted that the Board was not at a point of approval for the application, therefore, nothing would be happening this evening. Ellen Kambol wished to clarify that the reason so many abutters/interested parties were present was that they were surrounded by the applicant’s campground and wanted to be clear regarding the access road and the disruptions they experienced in living near the campground. She added that they were
looking for an assurance that this subdivision was not a back door to a manufactured housing park. Vera Magruder asked how any non-compliance of the access road usage would be dealt with after approval of the plan. Gordon Carlstrom replied that it would be an enforcement issue. Interested party Patricia Monbouquette stated that she would be interested to see a Police log of calls made by Clark Hill residents regarding campground disruptiveness. The Chairman replied that this was not a Planning Board issue in considering the application before them. Ellen Kambol stated that Clark Hill residents had complained at the last meeting that involved expansion proposals of the campground and had gotten nowhere. Douglas Hill replied that he did understand the abutters’ and interested parties’ position on the matter and their feelings but noted that this application did not involve the campground and the Planning Board was in the middle.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Thomas & Christine Quirk, Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/10, Residential-Agricultural "R-A" District, to November 11, 2008, at 8:30 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
This will be an informational session for Noel Sagna, to discuss an adult daycare home business at 3 Molly Stark Lane, Tax map/Lot #18/33.
Present for this discussion was Noel Sagna’s spouse, Kary Jencks. Kary Jencks began by stating that she felt her proposal may be a non-issue since according to the Town regulations she had referenced, an adult daycare program consisted of no less than 4 and no more than 12 clients. She clarified that because she lived in a small circa 1800 cape style home she anticipated using rooms on the first floor that included in total a full bath, 2 living rooms and an eat-in kitchen, therefore, could not anticipate accommodating more than 3 ambulatory seniors. Kary Jencks added that they also had a 4 year old and 5 month old child at home. She went on to say that she had a Master’s Degree in Public Health and Community Economic Development, was a Doctoral student
and had never before done this type of business. She noted that although it would be worthwhile for someone to identify a proper site for a larger facility this would involve State Regulations and she did not want to venture to that level. The Coordinator stated that the Town had identification of use for a child daycare but not for adults. The Chairman felt that there would be a different set of requirements regarding the fact that the business proposed would be in a home. In looking at the information Kary Jencks referenced the Coordinator thought that it was NFPA information not Town zoning. Douglas Hill clarified that it was Life Safety information. The Chairman asked if the adults being cared for would be mobile and intended to spend the day at the home. Kary Jencks replied that was correct and noted that there were many seniors in the area who were ambulatory and could take their own medications but found themselves alone
during the day and not tapped into a social setting. She noted that some were driven to Francestown, NH by a relative where they then caught a bus to a Jaffrey senior center, therefore, she felt there was a need for more localized services in that regard. The Chairman asked if the proposed 3 clients would be the same 3 each day. Kary Jencks replied that was correct and that they anticipated hours of 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the drop off point would be an issue given the location of the house on Bedford Road at Molly Stark Lane and the lack of parking. Kary Jencks agreed that was an issue to deal with but that they did have a fence with a gate at what would be a drop off area. The Chairman asked the Board their thoughts and whether they felt they should encourage or discourage the submittal of a Site Plan. Gordon Carlstrom thought that there would be some Life Safety issues. Douglas Hill noted that the
location was a challenging one for an ambulance to access should an emergency occur. Gordon Carlstrom further noted that it was, however, easy access from the Town center. Mark Suennen thought that there would be some ADA issues such as accessible curbs and the interior layout of the house. Kary Jencks noted that this would be a private facility that would not take Medicaid funding, therefore, she was not sure if these items would come into play at that level. Mark Suennen replied that if there was to be drop off at the road side to the home then ADA Regulations would come into play. Gordon Carlstrom thought that because this was a small scale proposal ADA might not be involved. Douglas Hill disagreed because this would be a business to which the public was invited. Kary Jencks stated that she would research this and noted that she had visited a private business of the same nature in Londonderry, NH, with 8 clients, no Medicaid involvement
and full right of the owner to accept or decline clients based on their needs. Gordon Carlstrom still thought that Life Safety requirements would still play a big role as a precondition.
The Chairman explained that assuming these hurdles were addressed an applicant would then go through Non-Residential Site Plan review and that the Planning Board could offer guidance as to how a plan should be drawn. He went on to state that a public hearing would then be held along with a site walk and, if approved, a compliance site walk to verify that everything noted on the plan was carried out after which the applicant would gain permission to operate. Kary Jencks added that from what her spouse had gathered for information she seemed to think that the requirements would be heavier on the State side. The Chairman agreed that this was likely. Kary Jencks stated that she wanted to go through the proper channels and not operate under the radar. She thanked
the Board for their time.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2008
1. Discussion, re: Bedford Road Safety Study. (No copies, distributed at last meeting.)
In consideration of the late hour the Board determined that this topic could be better addressed at a subsequent meeting.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to table the above noted item to October 28, 2008, at 8:30 p.m. on the agenda. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. A copy of a letter received October 3, 2008, from Reggie Houle Builders, LLC, to Town of New Boston Planning Board, re: request for extension on the Conditions Subsequent to the subdivision approval of Tax Map/Lot #7/74, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator explained that Reggie Houle wanted to wait on putting the final cot on the road as there was only one house sold so far.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the Conditions Subsequent for Reggie Houle Builders, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #7/74, one year from its current deadline. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. A copy of a letter received October 7, 2008, from Raymond P. Shea, Sandford Surveying and Engineering, Inc., to Town of New Boston Planning Board, re: request for extension on Conditions Subsequent to the subdivision approval of Tax Map/Lot #12/89, Mark E. LeBlanc 2004 Trust, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Don Duhaime noted that the applicant had promised to fix a section of Indian Falls Road by now and it was still not addressed. He felt the intention was to do nothing about the issue. Gordon Carlstrom asked when the Conditions Subsequent ran out. The Coordinator replied that it was November 8, 2008. Don Duhaime added that the applicant’s maintenance bond would expire soon also. The Planning Assistant then checked the files regarding the bond type, which she reported was a $32K letter of credit.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED that by the Planning Board meeting of October 28, 2008, the applicant would be required to have the Indian Falls Road issue addressed or a plan in place to do so, otherwise no further extensions would be granted. Douglas Hill seconded the motion. Mark Suennen abstained from the vote. The motion PASSED.
4. A copy of a letter received October 8, 2008, from Raymond P. Shea, Sandford Surveying and Engineering, Inc., to Town of New Boston Planning Board, re: request for extension on Conditions Subsequent to the subdivision approval of Tax Map/Lot #12/88, Jacqueline M. Bussiere, Et. Al., was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Board determined that because the above noted item was dependent on what was resolved by item #3 they would table its discussion to the 10/28/08 meeting.
5. A copy of a memorandum dated October 2, 2008, from David J. Preece, AICP, Executive Director, to all Conservation Commission Chairs, re: Natural Resources Advisory Committee Meeting, was distributed for the Board’s information.
6. Approval of minutes of September 9, 2008, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of September 9, 2008, as written. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
7. A copy of the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations for the public hearing of October 28, 2008, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator stated that the only difference was that she added the word “legible” to the requirement of submission of 11" x 17" plans and statement about copyright not applying to the Town of New Boston. The Board determined that with these changes the notice could go into the paper the following day for a public hearing on October 28, 2008.
8. A copy of the Planning Board Chairman’s proposed draft copy of Planning Board Alternate training was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that he had written this draft to aid in bringing new members up to speed more easily.
9. The minutes of September 23, 2008, were noted as having been distributed by email, for approval with or without changes, at the meeting of October 28, 2008.
At 10:30 p.m. Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to adjourn. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| 
