TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of September 9, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill and Don Duhaime, alternates, Dave Teed and 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, Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, Cyndie Wilson, Jay Marden, Mark and Christine Bilodeau, Brian Roy, Dana Lorden and Dean Glow, Albert LaChance, Dave Elliot, James and Claire Dodge, Richard and Gail Perreault, Chris Perreault, Colin Caldwell, Rick Paulhamus, Ed Hunter, Building Inspector, Chantelle Barton and Becky Grosso.
Discussion, re: road standards with Kevin Leonard of Northpoint Engineering, Road Agent, Road Committee, Board of Selectmen and Fire Wards
Present for this discussion was Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering.
Kevin Leonard, PE, stated that Michie Corp. had met with the Fire Wards the previous evening and that in speaking with the Fire Chief earlier today it had been conveyed that the Planning Board should expect a letter from him confirming that they planned to accept Michie’s product in the future and that details would be forthcoming. The Chairman asked that Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, be contacted about coming to the Board’s next meeting to review this.
The Chairman stated that regarding item #11 (Road Committee List of Road Improvement Projects) of the proposed road standard changes, they would take this up at the next meeting since the Road Agent was not able to attend tonight. The Coordinator noted that the Road Agent had met with Tim White, SNHPC, earlier today regarding the Bedford Road traffic study and that the final documents should be ready within a week, after which they would request a time to meet. She added that the Small Scale Commercial Committee was on the agenda for the next meeting so if they could not schedule a time to discuss Bedford Road at the meeting after that one, then possibly they might have some time on the Selectmens’ agenda.
Kevin Leonard, PE, stated that the Coordinator had revised the guarantee worksheet to reflect the cistern’s value per the Subdivision Regulations. The Coordinator clarified that rather than listing a dollar amount the language described how to create the dollar value by referencing the formula from the Regulations.
The Chairman asked if the Selectmen had reviewed the road standard changes proposed. The Coordinator replied that they had met and were in agreement with breaking down the roads as fashioned in the Improvement Construction Requirements. She noted item “k”: Minimum tangent length between reverse curves, with the minimum being reducable upon the approval of the Planning Board, if the centerline radii on curves alters. Kevin Leonard, PE, thought that this language was confusing which was why they had suggested that language regarding reducing the minimum be stricken. The Coordinator noted that if the numbers in the following item “j” were to change, then the Board could reduce tangent lengths, however, she was unsure why they would want to get
involved in that. She clarified that the rest of the information was everything that had been discussed at prior meeting but with different itemization numbers/letters. The Coordinator added that there were also minor tweaks to be made elsewhere in the Subdivision Regulations such as requiring a legible 11” X 17” copy of the plan, etc., but these things could be addressed as housekeeping all at once when the piece was finalized.
Discussion, re: Planning Board Procedures
The Chairman stated that he had drafted an outline of things he would like to address regarding the Planning Board’s rules and procedures. He noted that being new to the role of Chairman he hoped to discuss the things that he proposed based on training, reading or things he had observed at meetings and see how Board members felt about it.
The Chairman first referenced an additional piece he had drafted and which had been edited by the Coordinator and Planning Board Assistant titled “So You Have An Approved Plan...Frequently Asked Questions” which he felt could be forwarded to applicants to clarify the chronology of events that would take place after an approval. Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator and the Planning Assistant if they felt that a similar piece would be helpful for applicants who were in the application stage. The Coordinator replied that from her standpoint she encountered more issues with home business applicants once their plans were approved. The Planning Assistant agreed. The Board stated that they liked this outline and felt it would be helpful to
applicants.
The next topic the Chairman wished to discuss was the handling of applications. He noted that the Board did not seem to distinguish between accepting an application as complete and approving a plan as the two confirmations sometimes happened one right after the other. Douglas Hill noted that the Board’s 65-day deadline for action once an application was accepted as complete was one reason. The Coordinator explained that some planning boards did split their agendas for an application and once it was accepted as complete it was adjourned to another hearing to consider approval. She noted that the Town’s policy had always been to combine this into one hearing to streamline the process. The Coordinator added that, along the same lines of thought,
when the Board delayed consideration of waivers on studies based on an upcoming site walk for an applicant this could also push the Board over its 30 day time frame in which to consider an application complete. She noted that considering a temporary waiver(s) might work well in such situations.
The next topic on the Chairman’s outline highlighted the order of handling a public hearing where the application was first read aloud and that the audience was asked to hold questions until later in the discussion. He continued that if a non-professional applicant was being heard that they should be informed of the process and procedures and then asked if they have any questions. Then the applicant can proceed with their presentation without interruption (unless a clarification that cannot wait is required). The Chairman stated that if a continuance is needed that the status be summarized first at the next meeting and outstanding issues/questions be addressed prior to getting into any new discussion to keep the process more focused. He proposed that at an
adjourned hearing the applicant not be allowed to take the floor and simply reiterate the facts of the plan that were discussed at the first hearing. The Board agreed. The next segment of discussion could then include comments by those in favor and abutters followed by comments from those opposed and interested parties and comments from Town representatives. Gordon Carlstrom stressed the importance of time management, which this outline addressed and noted that applicants and the audience should be made aware of the time limit to each hearing and held to that time frame. Douglas Hill added that Board members should be discouraged from going off on tangents of discussion which made hearings go over time unnecessarily. The Chairman replied that this had been pointed out to him by many and he was working on that issue. The Chairman stated that condition dates should be set ahead of acceptance motions and that a copy of these conditions could be
provided to applicants as a handout prior to acceptance so that they could follow along with the motions and subsequent vote.
The Chairman asked that he be reminded when to seat alternates as full Board members when a regular member was absent. He noted that an alternate could only vote on Miscellaneous Business items and not on plans unless seated as a full voting member. The Chairman added that while it was fine to include alternates in public discussions they should be precluded from deliberations as there could be legal ramifications if an applicant went to court over the fact that the alternate was not seated as a full member for that hearing. Douglas Hill asked if when the Board was polled alternates were also polled. The Chairman and the Coordinator replied that they were not. Gordon Carlstrom added that visual segregation of alternates from Board members should be considered
in the seating arrangement of the Board. The Chairman added that there should be record kept of which alternates were seated as full members for which hearings, site walks, etc.
The Chairman next covered the topic of changes to Rules of Procedure noting that the last update was eight years ago. He recommended that this topic be addressed at least annually and that the document currently addressed things the Board did and did not do and why but should also address all situations the Board might face. The Chairman stated that the generally accepted purposes of going over the Rules of Procedure were to meet the requirements of RSA 676:1, to highlight…RSA 673… and to ensure RSA 676…assuring proper implementation. He added that assurance of Planning Board operations being commonly known and understood was another point along with developing and promoting consistency of Board actions.
The next topics on the Chairman’s outline addressed the tracking/status of annual objectives which he noted the Coordinator focused very well on in keeping the Board on track. He suggested a one page tracking sheet to be reviewed “regularly” that had significant events or activities as objectives and was part of Miscellaneous Business at each second monthly meeting. An example tracking sheet was noted in the outline. For the tracking/status of sub-committees he again noted the Coordinator’s excellent job of providing detailed minutes but wondered if a “push” flow process might be easier to absorb given the amount of information. The Chairman added that current Board members on sub-committees were Don Duhaime-Small Scale Commercial
Committee, Stu Lewin-Source Water Protection Committee and Peter Hogan-Footbridge Design Committee.
The Chairman’s next topic involved the seating arrangement for the room in which meetings were held. The diagram in the outline showed the current layout of the room and a suggested change with audience members facing the presentation easel versus being perpendicular to it. He added that he was not so sure now about moving the chairs so it was determined that the Recording Clerk would sit adjacent to the Board next to the Planning Assistant instead of on the other side of the easel so that presenters could stand there.
The final topic on the outline noted that the date of adoption/latest update be included on the cover of the regulation and ordinance documents to clarify the version. The Chairman stated that any members with comments or suggestions should feel free to bring them up either during pre-meeting work sessions, as a scheduled agenda item, in off-line discussion with the Chairman or through the Planning Coordinator or Planning Assistant according to the topic.
Dave Teed asked that maps be provided for site walks when necessary as he was new to Town and sometimes had difficulty finding a location. The Board offered that for multiple site walks on the same day, as long as members knew how to get to the first one they could then follow each other to the subsequent walks.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008
1. Endorsement of a Site Plan for William Lambert, Lambert Property Management, Tax Map/Lot # 3/52-26, 42 Hemlock Drive, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
Given that there were multiple signatures it was determined that the above noted Site Plan would be signed at the end of the meeting.
2. A copy of a letter dated August 29, 2008, to Geoffrey Katz from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: River Road, Tax Map/Lot # 18/9, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Related to item #10 below.
10. A copy of a letter received September 8, 2008, to the Coordinator and the Board from Geoff and Cyndie Katz, re: 3 River Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman stated that Mr. Katz was unable to attend tonight but that he would still be in favor of having the Katz’s come before the Board to explain the issue. The Board agreed.
3. A copy of a letter dated September 3, 2008, from Earl Sandford to the Board, re: bond reduction for Albert LaChance, wetland crossing, Weare Road, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Chairman stated that the current bond was $54.7K and the applicant was requesting a reduction of $54.3K. He noted that the Town Engineer did not review wetland crossings. The Coordinator noted that per the Planning Assistant’s clarification this was a CUP, therefore a compliance site walk must be scheduled by the Board. A site walk was scheduled for September 13, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. +/-.
4. A copy of a letter dated September 4, 2008, from Chantelle Barton to the Board, re: Inkberry Road driveway, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5-1, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Because Chantelle Barton was to be present later in the evening for this item the Board noted that they would return to it at a later time.
5. A copy of a memorandum received September 2, 2008, from Jillian Harris, Planner, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, to Emergency Management Directors, re: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Updates, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that it appeared that the above would be coordinated by SNHPC and handled through the Planning Board and Selectmen.
6. Advisory Committee Meeting Announcement, re: Rebuilding Southern New Hampshire through Brownfield’s Investment, for the Board’s information.
Gordon Carlstrom stated that he planned on attending.
7. Announcement of the Fall Planning and Zoning Conference for October 25, 2008, for the Board’s information.
Dave Teed stated that he would be attending. The Chairman stated that anyone else interested should let the office know.
8. The minutes of August 26, 2008, were noted as having been distributed via email for approval at the meeting of September 23, 2008.
9. A copy of a letter received September 8, 2008, to the Board and Planning Coordinator, from Kevin Leonard of Northpoint Engineering, re: Lull Road Bond for Albert LaChance, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Chairman noted that the original bond was $37,288.90 with a release recommended by Kevin Leonard, PE, of $25,823.11 to leave $11,465.80 remaining.
Douglas Hill MOVED to reduce the bond for Albert LaChance, Lull Road, by
$25,823.11 per Kevin Leonard’s letter of 9/09/08. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
11. A copy of the Outstanding Items Summary dated September 9, 2008, from Northpoint Engineering, re: Christian Farm Estates, was distributed for the Board’s information.
12. A copy of a letter dated September 9, 2008, from Northpoint Engineering to Dave Elliot of D&S Excavating, Inc., re: Twin Bridge Estates, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the Site Plan for William Lambert, Lambert
Property Management, Tax Map/Lot # 3/52-26, 42 Hemlock Drive.
The Bilodeaus were present in the audience and noted that the Planning Board had requested by letter for them to appear to discuss issues with their cordwood business before the 8:00 hearing. The Chairman apologized for the oversight and asked if the Bilodeaus could remain through the 8:00 hearing and the Board would then take a few minutes to speak to them afterward. Christine Bilodeau stated that her husband needed to get up early for work and they could not stay. The Chairman apologized again and said that they would reschedule the Bilodeaus for another meeting date and time.
McCURDY DEVELOPMENT, LLC
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 was Brian Roy, Cuoco and Cormier, and the applicants Dana Lorden and Dean Glow. An abutter present was Cyndie Wilson. An interested party present was Jay Marden. The Chairman asked that questions from the audience be held until the presentation was made and general discussion ensued. He thanked Brian Roy for providing legible copies of the plan.
Brian Roy stated that the proposal was Forest View Phase II, open space development, totaling 175 acres. He noted that there were 15 individual Stormwater Management Plans submitted along with a waiver request for some roadway design issues. Also submitted were a drainage report, soils, Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies, maintenance manual, conservation easement, declaration of covenants for fire sprinkler systems and a description of the drainage design. Brian Roy added that 26.2 acres of the total acreage was wet with primary flows going from east to west and south to north. He noted that 40 lots were proposed, with 2 on McCurdy Road and the remainder internal to the site with 2 open space lots. Brian Roy further noted that there were
approximately 70 acres on one side of the site and 30 on the other with 97.14 acres in a permanent conservation easement except for the drainage easements which were excluded from that. He noted that the main roadway proposed would be off McCurdy (Lorden Road) which would connect to existing Susan Road and would be approximately 4,400 linear feet with a 1,000’ cul-de-sac. Brian Roy noted that the road names had been approved by the Selectmen and that the 40 lots proposed ranged from 1.2 to 3 acres, with the average size being 1.4 to 1.6 acres. He added that the maximum density calculation allowed for 74 lots, however, the owners only proposed 40, keeping the site large in size and in character with the neighborhood. In addition Brian Roy noted that 40% open space was provided less the 100’ buffer area and when this was included it equaled 68% open space with 74% contiguous and meeting all requirements for the open space calculations. He added
that the applicant had received a Site Specific Permit this past February and State Subdivision Approval at the end of June of this year (all lots were under 5 acres). Brian Roy went on to state that in April of this year the applicant received a Dredge and Fill Permit for 6,900 s.f. of fill for forested wetlands and mitigation required for open space. He added that in regard to the Dredge and Fill and wetlands all soils had been mapped and soil types noted on the plan along with 5 vernal pools. Brian Roy stated that there were no 100 year flood zones on the site and 3 wetland crossings proposed were for road access only. He added that one wetland crossing was approximately 1,700 s.f. with a box arch culvert proposed in consideration of wildlife crossings and would be large enough to allow light to pass through and wide enough to allow for wet and dry areas for animal traffic. Brian Roy stated that the second crossing proposed was 3,300 s.f. with an 8’ X 3’ arch and the third
crossing was 1,200 s.f. with a 5 X 1’.75” arch. He added that all drainage and lot construction proposed was outside of the wetlands, therefore, no other permits were required. Brian Roy explained that wildlife studies done for the site revealed potential inhabitants such as the Blandings Turtle, Eastern Hognose Snake and a specie of bat. He added that the Traffic Study looked at traffic impacts to McCurdy and Bedford Road and that there was good sight distance at the proposed road entrance and the main intersection with negligible impact as a result of the proposed development. Brian Roy stated that the connection between McCurdy and Susan Roads provided a good loop for emergency access vehicles and the Fiscal Impact Report showed a net cost of $1,280 per lot excluding a one-time fee for taking the site out of current use. Douglas Hill thought that a different calculation was required based on the fact that the proposal was for an Open
Space development. Brian Roy replied that he would look into that. He noted that a Drainage Report was submitted to the State with erosion control measures and in consideration of the 50 year storm analysis on site and downstream, drainage points onto and off the site were considered with culvert points checked. Brian Roy stated that there would be no net increase in runoff and full treatment for roadways constructed would be provided per State and Town requirements.
Brian Roy stated that a Declaration of Covenants regarding fire sprinkler restrictions had been submitted along with a waiver request for bounds to be set. He explained that the applicant would prefer to set the bounds after approval. Brian Roy explained that the second waiver request regarded the maximum grade at an intersection which was required to be -3% for 75’, however, due to slopes at the intersection and the sizing of the culverts they proposed a slight positive slope of 1% in order to hold to AASHTO standards. He added that another waiver request dealt with a driveway proposed on McCurdy Road at a 9% section of that road versus the required 8% or less. The Chairman felt that a site walk was warranted given that 3 of the Board members were unfamiliar
with the area. Gordon Carlstrom questioned the applicant’s fiscal impact results and noted that there had been a sharp increase in the number of school children attending New Boston Central School this year. The Chairman asked if detailed information regarding the Fiscal and Traffic Impact Studies could be provided. Brian Roy replied that he could have the appropriate consultants available for discussion at a subsequent meeting if the Board preferred. Douglas Hill asked if the Environmental Impact Study was based on the older plan design. Brian Roy replied that the wildlife conclusions were the same result between plans and that Klumb Environmental was the only company involved in doing the Environmental
Impact Study for this site. Douglas Hill asked again if the old plan or the new plan was the basis for the study. Brian Roy replied that the original plan had 30 to 40 acres open but the roadway proposed was the same and in the case of the new plan some lots had been shifted over.
He stated that the Wetland Report and the Environmental Impact Study ran with the original plan submittal.
Jay Marden asked if the green areas noted on the plan were proposed to remain in their natural state. Brian Roy replied that that was the case and that the Conservation Commission would be the stewards of the Open Space with lot owners having no rights to cut, etc., on land within the permanent conservation easement. Cyndie Wilson stated that she was an abutter to the northeast border of the site and noted that the easement proposed connected with easements on adjacent properties with the applicants’ easement conserving land from McCurdy Road to Laurel Lane and up to the New Boston Tracking Station. She added that she was a member of the Conservation Commission and that they would monitor this area once a year, an area that was very large in size, therefore, they
would need to have a relationship with all lot owners. Jay Marden asked if there would be boundary markers placed to alert lot owners where the conservation portion of the site began. Cyndie Wilson replied that the Conservation Commission had requested that when they surveyed the site that signs/markers be installed on trees. The Chairman asked if the proposed road, centerlines and driveways were marked for a site walk. Brian Roy replied that he knew that the road had been staked a long time ago. Dean Glow noted that it still was evident.
Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the application of McCurdy Development, LLC, Major Subdivision, 42 Lots, Location: McCurdy Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 96, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
A site walk was scheduled for October 4, 2008, at 8:30 a.m. Brian Roy asked if the Board would like the consultants involved with the studies for the site to be present at the site walk. The Chairman replied that the Board would just like representatives present who were familiar with stations on site. Dean Glow asked if the Board could draft any questions they had regarding the various studies prior to the next meeting so that they could prepare the answers. The Chairman replied that this could be done.
Douglas Hill 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 October 14, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Interview with Jennifer Comeau, re: Application for Appointment to the Planning Board.
The Coordinator stated that Jennifer Comeau had withdrawn her application.
At 8:30 p.m. the Planning Board took a 5 minute break.
Discussion, re: Amended Site Plan, Dodge Farms, ice cream and garden stand, Claire and James Dodge, Tax Map/Lot #5/21.
Present for this discussion were James and Claire Dodge. Douglas Hill stated that he liked what the Dodges had done with the site. Claire Dodge explained that they had submitted an amended Site Plan to the Planning Department to include some recent additions and changes, one being the exact location of the business sign. She added that the primary differences now were that the driveway was installed and there were some mobile buildings added as they found that they needed more storage space for supplies and a larger vegetable stand. Claire Dodge noted that all three buildings now on site were mobile and that some more landscaping had been done. She added that they were open from May through October and that it was a family run business. Douglas Hill asked
if a new Site Plan was being submitted. Claire Dodge replied that it was the old Site Plan with amendments. She added that nothing else had changed and the hours of operation remained the same. The Chairman stated that he had visited the site the previous weekend and had no issues. Douglas Hill agreed.
Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the amended Site Plan for James and Claire Dodge, Dodge Farms, ice cream and garden stand, Tax Map/Lot #5/21, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District without requiring additional site plan review. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
This will be an informational session for Richard Perreault, to discuss change of use of Tax Map/Lot #3/63-14, 123 Whipplewill Road.
Present for this discussion were Richard and Gail Perreault and their son Chris, Colin Caldwell and present owner Rick Paulhamus.
Richard Perreault stated that he would like to purchase the property at 123 Whipplewill Road and start a family fuel oil (possibly diesel) business. He added that in the future he would consider looking at oil storage on site but knew that he would need to apply to the State first. He noted that his first step was to apply for a change of use for the site. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the site was in a flood plain. Richard Perreault replied that it was not. Gordon Carlstrom asked how many gallons Richard Perreault was looking to store on site. Richard Perreault replied that for now he would be purchasing the fuel and keeping it in his trucks which he would park on site. Gordon Carlstrom asked how many trucks he would use. Richard Perreault
replied that he had two straight jobs and two trailers. Douglas Hill stated that the Board would need to determine if the use proposed was permitted on that site (which was a Commercial Zone). He asked the turning capacity for the site given the trucks that would be used. Chris Perreault replied that the site could accommodate such equipment given its commercial history. The Board then referenced the Zoning Ordinance to see if fuel storage was permitted on the site since this was a future plan of the applicant. They informed Richard Perreault that they would need to research the matter further as the use was potentially not allowed. The Chairman explained that if it was found to be a permitted use the next step would be for the Perreaults to submit a Site
Plan and if it was not a permitted use they had the option of approaching the ZBA for a variance. If the variance was granted the Chairman explained that the Perreaults could then submit their Site Plan. It was noted that the proposal may fit within one of the Special Exception uses which would also require ZBA approval, but this would take some research. He added that at the next meeting they would have answers from their research on the matter of the usage.
A subsequent informational session was scheduled for September 23, 2008, at 8:30 p.m. Rick Paulhamus asked if the Perreaults were just parking their fuel trucks on the site if this would require a special exception. The Chairman replied that the Board was not completely sure because the usage proposed did not seem to fit in any special category of the Zoning Ordinance. Gordon Carlstrom added that if the Perreaults wished to expand in the future to include storage of fuel on site then they should know up front if this would be allowed.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
4. A copy of a letter dated September 4, 2008, from Chantelle Barton to the Board, re: Inkberry Road driveway, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5-1, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Lot owner Chantelle Barton was present for this item along with Ed Hunter, Building Inspector and a friend, Becky Grosso.
The Chairman reviewed the history of the issue and stated that at the meeting of July, 22, 2008, Brian McKenna, Project Manager, Thibeault Corporation, was in attendance with lot owner Joseph Cabral and had presented changes to the plans. He added that a site walk was held on August 2, 2008, at which the Board noted that the second half of the driveway from the stone wall to the house exceeded the 10% maximum grade and it was determined that the slopes along the driveway needed stabilization and an As-Built Plan would be required to prove the driveway grade was at 10% or less. The Chairman stated that Chantelle Barton appeared before the Board on August 26, 2008, looking for guidance and he had asked the Coordinator to look into the Driveway Regulations. He noted that the
Driveway Regulations had gone into effect in 2001 and the plan was approved in 2005 with the Driveway Permit being issued 3 ½ years after the Driveway Regulations took effect. The Chairman further noted that Board was not accustomed to dealing with issues such as this in the ninth hour and the Fire Department also felt that there were safety issues in accessing the house with the driveway at its current grade.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector, stated that he had gone to the site for a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) Inspection and found the house to be occupied, which, historically, called for a $275/day fine to occupants unless they vacated the premises. He noted that an option was now to issue a temporary CO with an expiration period agreed to in order to legitimize the occupancy especially since the only hold up was the driveway. Ed Hunter added that if the expiration period was reached and the issue went unresolved the lot owners would be at the same point they were at now with impending fines unless they vacate the house. He noted that he offered this temporary solution since it may release funds being held by the lot owners’ financial institution so that they could
address the driveway situation. Douglas Hill was unsure if a financial institution would release funds based on a temporary CO. He added that there was the option of the lot owners fronting a bond to get a CO. Gordon Carlstrom stated that the contractor for the lot should fix the problem noting that the Town had worked very hard to secure the Driveway Regulations that were in place today. Douglas Hill asked the contractor’s name. Chantelle Barton replied that it was her son-in-law and everything was in her step daughter’s name. Douglas Hill suggested that the lot owners secure an engineer who could show the driveway grades along with what it would cost to fix the grade issues. Gordon Carlstrom thought that a 60 day temporary CO would be appropriate to aid the lot owners in securing an engineer and possibly a bond agreement. Chantelle Barton offered that she would update the Board in 30 days as to their progress on the
matter.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to authorize the issuance of a 60 day temporary CO and have the applicant appear before the Board with appropriate bonding or an As-Built Plan that proved the driveway to Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5-1, Inkberry Road was at a grade of 10% or less. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman signed the amended Site Plan for James and Claire Dodge, Dodge Farms, ice cream and garden stand, Tax Map/Lot #5/21, Commercial “COM” District.
At 9:30 p.m. Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to adjourn. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| 
