Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 11/23/04
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan.  Present were regular members James Nordstrom; ex-officio Dave Woodbury; and, alternate Don Duhaime.  Also present were Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown, and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.  
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Kim Burkhamer, Jay Marden, Rick Martin, Sarah Hogan, Bob Todd, LLS, Amy Alexander, Paul Golding, Roc Larochelle, Willard Dodge, Tom Clap, Paul Sizemore, Timothy Burnham, Bill Connors, Art Siciliano, LLS, George St. John, Kevin St. John, Karen Kersting, Brian Holt, Jeff Kevan, PE, and Eric Mitchell.

PUBLIC HEARING
Final Draft of the New Boston Capital Improvements Program, Plan of 2005, as proposed by the C.I.P. Comm.

                The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  No interested parties were present.  The Board reviewed the final draft and the Chairman asked if a lease was proposed for new police vehicles.  The Planning Assistant replied that was correct and she believed a three or four year lease was proposed for three new vehicles.  The Chairman stated that although he was not proposing a change he was curious who had suggested the choice of a new Ford Expedition over a Ford Explorer, which was one of the models currently employed.  Dave Woodbury replied that Chief Begin had suggested the model change as he was dissatisfied with the current Ford Explorer and wanted the extra size of the Expedition with four-wheel drive.  Don Duhaime noted that he thought the 2000 Explorer would be kept through the year 2005 as it still had mileage to be used.  The Chairman stated that he had read in the local paper that the police cruiser had been out for repair for three weeks and noted he could have repaired the vehicle in one day.  Dave Woodbury stated that the Chief had been frustrated with the service at Grappone Auto.  He added that he would relay the Chairman’s comments to the Chief when they next spoke.  The Planning Assistant thought the warranty coverage for the cruiser was through the Grappone dealership.  The Chairman agreed and added the cruiser might have been purchased through Grappone.  He noted that the lease proposed by Chief Begin was likely to be several thousand dollars more than if new vehicles were purchase outright.  Don Duhaime replied that contrary information was give to the CIP Committee which was that $27K would be required to buy one new Crown Victoria versus $20,500.00 per year for three new vehicles and a $1.00 purchase option per vehicle at the lease term.  The Chairman did not think that information was accurate and noted he had double checked the figures with the dealership involved which differed slightly from what was presented to the CIP Committee.  The Chairman further noted that the useful life of the vehicles would most likely be over at the lease term, therefore, the $1.00 purchase was a moot point.  Don Duhaime stated that the three vehicles currently used by the Police Department were all in need of replacement.  The Chairman noted that he did not think the proposed lease was a bad deal and understood that it might be more apt to win a Town vote because it looked good on paper.  He added that he only wanted to point out that the net affect was approximately $5K greater than the purchase option.  Dave Woodbury added that the excess of funds spent to keep the current vehicles operating versus the funds needed to buy new vehicles in conjunction with the $1.00 purchase option should be considered because a positive balance might result.  PUBLIC HEARING, Capital Improvements Program, cont.

The Chairman asked if the proposed lease quote included extended service plans.  Dave Woodbury replied he Chief would need to be contacted for that answer.  The Chairman explained that $1-2K service plans could be added through municipal extended service plans beyond the standard three year-thirty six thousand mile plans offered.  He asked if the Selectmen would be reviewing the CIP draft.  Dave Woodbury replied that they would and while they would not be adverse to recommendations by the CIP Committee and Planning Board they would still deliberate on the items.  Don Duhaime asked if the Finance Committee was next to review the draft.  Dave Woodbury replied that the draft had already been reviewed once by the Finance Committee who had no specific comments and that they would conduct a vote at year-end once all Town budgets were presented.
        The next item reviewed was the transfer station.  The Chairman asked if the noted hopper was under cover.  Dave Woodbury replied that the hopper was protected by a tin roof only and that more effective coverage was needed.   
                Under the Fire Department items, the Chairman asked which truck was represented by the term “U2” and where it was stored at the Fire Station.  Don Duhaime believed the U2 truck was the oxygen truck.  Dave Woodbury asked if Willard Dodge, from the audience, could provide a description.  Willard Dodge explained that the U2 truck was the old military ambulance and was used to provide oxygen and extra air tanks at all major emergencies.  He added the U2 truck was kept outside in the rear of the Fire Station.  Willard Dodge further noted this was an important vehicle used by the Fire Department and had also been secured on several occasions by the neighboring town of Goffstown, NH.  Dave Woodbury stated he understood the U2 had many mechanical issues and the Fire Department preferred its replacement.       

                James Nordstrom MOVED to submit the CIP Plan of 2005, as presented and  recommended by the CIP Committee of 2005, to the Board of Selectmen and Finance         Committee.  Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING
Amendments to the New Boston Zoning Ordinance

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  An interested party was Kim Burkhamer of the Steep Slopes Committee.  Kim Burkhamer stated that the draft of the Steep Slopes Ordinance had been forwarded to the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC) and Town Counsel.  She added that both parties thought the intent of the Ordinance was clear and well written.  Kim Burkhamer stated that Bill Drescher, Esq., had proposed an additional Paragraph “C”, “Scope of the Application of the Ordinance”, to further define the intent which included the phrasing: “…to apply to the construction or development of any building lot not exempted hereby and is also intended to govern the manner in which the Planning Board approves of subdivisions and site plans.”  She added that Bill Drescher, Esq., and James Mann, Jr., suggested that language from Paragraph #8 be removed which stated “The Planning Board may require the applicant to submit an Environmental Impact assessment.”  Kim Burkhamer noted to
PUBLIC HEARING, Amendments to Zoning Ordinance, cont.

these parties that the language said “may require” which inferred that such a requirement was at the Planning Board’s discretion, however, both  Bill Drescher, Esq., and James (Jack) Mann, Jr., had thought such assessments were more appropriately addressed in the Subdivision Regulations for major subdivisions and should not be considered for smaller land development scenarios.  She added that the addition of a mathematical formula to further define Slope Area had been discussed, however, Bill Drescher, Esq., stated he was satisfied with this definition as presented.  The Chairman asked if there were any other questions or comments and there were none.  Dave Woodbury asked if the public hearing should then be closed.  Kim Burkhamer asked if there was a difference between a public hearing and previous public input sessions that had been held for the Steep Slopes Committee.  The Chairman replied that in legal terms there was a slight difference.  Dave Woodbury noted that from a practical standpoint, in this formal setting, as well as at public input sessions, comments from anyone were welcomed and encouraged.  From the audience, Jay Marden asked if he might obtain a copy of the draft of the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  Kim Burkhamer provided Mr. Marden with her copy.  The Chairman closed the public hearing and asked the Board if they proposed any changes to the draft of the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  There were no further comments from the Board.

        Dave Woodbury MOVED to propose the amendment to the Zoning Board Ordinance as   presented for the ballot vote in March, 2005.  James Nordstrom seconded the motion and  it PASSED unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING
Amendments to the Building Code

                The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  He listed the proposed amendments to the Building Code as follows:

        Amend Section NB-1.5.2 to refer to the 2002 edition of NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes and to delete the last clause of the Section, which refers to fire fighting water supply systems for subdivisions.
        Add a new Section NB-1.5.3, which adopts the 2002 edition of NFPA 13R, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Multi-Family Dwellings.
        Amend Chapter NB-5.0 as follows:
        Replace the word “and” before “Manufactured Homes” with a comma and add the words “…and Multi-Family Dwellings.” to end of the title.
        Section NB-5.1 Scope: Replace the word “and” before “manufactured homes” with a comma and add the words “and multi-family dwellings” to the end of the sentence.
        Section NB-5.2 Purpose: Delete the existing section in its entirety and replace with new language to describe the value of sprinkler systems for life safety.
        Section NB-5.3 Process
PUBLIC HEARING, Amendments to the Building Code, cont,

        Sub-section NB-5.3.1, Amend this section to refer to the 2002 edition of NFPA 13D and to include reference to NFPA 13R.
        Sub-section NB-5.3.7, Amend this section to refer to the correct chapter of the Building Code.
        Section NB-5.4 Design, Amend the first sentence to refer to the 2002 edition of NFPA 13D and to include reference to NFPA 13R.
        Add a new section NB-5.5, Multi-Family Dwelling Renovations to describe the need for sprinkler systems in multi-family dwellings under renovation and enlargement.
        Renumber existing Section NB-5.5 Disclaimer to NB-5.6.

        Don Duhaime stated that he disagreed with the deletion of the last clause in Section NB-1.5.2, which referred to fire fighting water supply systems for subdivisions as it would remove an element of control now sustained by the Fire Department.  The Planning Assistant noted that the Chief of the Fire Department requested this change as he wanted fire sprinkler systems installed for all new homes going forward.  From the audience, Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., asked if this meant cisterns would no longer be recommended by the Fire Department.  The Chairman replied he was unsure if that was an accurate assumption for all future cases.  James Nordstrom stated that he believed the Chief wished to mandate fire sprinklers for new construction while retaining the option for the Fire Department to recommend cisterns in certain scenarios.  He added that changing the clause in Section NB-1.5.2 did not alternately undermine the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations but would instead require sprinklers for any approved building lot that pulled a building permit.  Don Duhaime thought a high risk would still be present in the case of a house fire that went out of control with no water supply available.  The Chairman explained that the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations were not being changed where fire fighting water supply for new subdivisions would still be required.  Don Duhaime asked if the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations superceded those of the Building Code.  The Chairman replied that the requirements of both the Subdivision Regulations and the Building Code could be considered as overlays to each other.  Amy Alexander explained that an example scenario for the change to clause NB-1.5.2 would be that a cistern could not be required in the case of the construction of one house lot.  From the audience Jay Marden clarified that the change to the clause from Section NB-1.5.2 would mean that any new home would now require fire sprinklers rather than just new homes built within subdivisions.  Roc Larochelle of the Road Committee, asked if fire sprinklers would be required for existing homes that underwent renovations.  The Chairman replied that if the extent of the renovations was greater than 50% of the total square footage of the existing home then the sprinkler requirement would most likely apply.
        From the audience, Rick Martin, President of Right Way Builders stated that as a builder he had two factors to consider when installing fire sprinkler systems in new homes.  He noted the first factor to be the high cost of sprinkler systems and how that cost could in turn affect the ability of a builder to offer affordable housing to consumers.  Rick Martin stated his second factor concerned the proper design of sprinkler systems and their home water supply tanks and
PUBLIC HEARING, Amendments to the Building Code, cont,

whether the design of the tanks was appropriate for fire suppression.  He explained that the Sprinkler Ordinance required fire sprinkler systems to pump 35 gallons per minute for adequate fire suppression and therefore a standard 300-gallon water supply tank would be depleted in less than 10 minutes.  In addition, Rick Martin noted that if the power were to fail after the fire began the pump for the fire suppression system would not work.  He added that he had mentioned his concerns to the Building Inspector and also to Gary Robbins and suggested that the Regulation be broadened so that water supply could be pumped directly from a home owner’s well.  Rick Martin stated that he would have no issue with a change in the Regulations that required the installation of a generator that would operate the pumping of the well in case of a power failure until the Fire Department arrived.  The Chairman stated he understood that when the Sprinkler Regulations were adopted a minimum water reserve capacity was required and that one’s well could be considered a reserve to that capacity and run off the domestic water system of the house.  Rick Martin stated that an electric pump ran the reserve and not the domestic system.  Jay Marden thought once the water supply was emptied the well would compensate to refill the tank.  Rick Martin replied that this was not the case as the fire suppression system was a closed system.  He noted that he had installed a generator that would directly run the pump from the well with no reserve tank involved, at a home he built on Christie Road.  The Chairman clarified that if such a system had been required by the Town at that time it would not have been approved.  Rick Martin replied that was correct.  The Chairman stated that was not the way he understood the fire suppression system was handled.  James Nordstrom agreed.  The Chairman explained that he understood the fire sprinkler system to be a potentially tankless system given the depth of a homeowner’s well.  Rick Martin replied that he had never dug a well within the Town under 400 feet that could provide adequate water supply for that scenario.  He added that he had spoken on several occasions with the Building Inspector and Gary Robbins of the Fire Department who informed him that directly pumping from the well into the fire suppression system was not accepted or engineered for fire fighting water reserve.  The Chairman asked if Rick Martin believed the Town’s Regulations prohibited the way he designed the system for the home he built on Christie Road.  Rick Martin concurred and noted that standard fire sprinkler systems were not only expensive at approximately $6K, but could run out of water in approximately 15 minutes.  From the audience, Sarah Hogan asked if the Fire Department exceeded 15 minutes in their response to a fire in the Town.  The Chairman said they did not but more importantly the fire sprinkler system was not supposed to be tied to a closed unit.  He added that he was aware of the power failure risk, however, the generator tie-in to the fire sprinkler system was rejected as it was deemed cost prohibitive.  Rick Martin explained that if the cost of the holding tank, pump and excess gadgetry was removed from the standard systems and the generator tie-in was added the cost would be very close to the $6K figure for a 2,200 s.f. home.  James Nordstrom stated that he understood the sprinkler system to not be a closed system and that it was tied to the domestic water supply so that the homeowner could not disable it.  Don Duhaime referenced the NFPA Regulations, which stated that if a fire sprinkler system was to be connected to the domestic water system of a home it would be required to pump five gallons per minute.  Rick Martin believed 30 gallons per minute would be pumped from a fire sprinkler system.  The PUBLIC HEARING, Amendments to the Building Code, cont,

Planning Assistant noted that the amendments to the Building Code were pending Bill Drescher, Esq.’s review.  Dave Woodbury commented that the Board lacked a Fire Department representative at tonight’s meeting which would have been helpful to this discussion.  Jay Marden commented that the combination of the tank and the well would be more beneficial than the tank alone noting that a power failure was the glitch.  Dave Woodbury felt it was important to consider the progression of the amendment at tonight’s hearing even if flaws were present.  Willard Dodge stated that the main point of the amendments was that sprinkler systems be used whereas water supply was a separate issue.  The Chairman agreed that the amendments did not modify the actual Sprinkler Regulations in place.  Jay Marden agreed noting that the amendments expanded the coverage of the Sprinkler Regulations.  He confirmed that with changes to the amendments of the Building Code considered, a house lot that was located within 2,200 feet of an existing fire cistern would still require fire sprinklers.  The Chairman replied that was an accurate statement.  The Chairman closed the public hearing.  James Nordstrom felt the Fire Wards should be contacted regarding the issues raised by Rick Martin.  Dave Woodbury agreed and noted public education was warranted on this subject prior to the March 2005 Town vote.     

                Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the amendments to the Building Code as presented.         James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        The Chairman appointed Don Duhaime as an alternate and voting member of the Board for tonight’s hearings.

RIGHT WAY BUILDERS      Adjourned from 10/26/04
By Rick Martin
Work Session/Design Review
Lot Line Adjustment/Major Subdivision/23 Lots
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/52 & 5/50
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and Rick Martin, President of Right Way Builders.  Abutters and interested parties present were Paul Golding, Roc Larochelle, Jay Marden, Tom Clap, Willard Dodge, and Kim Burkhamer.
        Bob Todd, LLS’s, presentation is as follows:

1.0     Introduction
        1.1     Robert Todd presenting on behalf of the applicants: Right Way Builders, Towne, and Garretson    
        1.2    Proposal involves three tax parcels: 52 and 50 for subdivision, lot 52-1 for lot line
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, cont.

        adjustment, and lot 51 for lot line adjustment.
        1.3    Last meeting we were presenting a subdivision plan showing 26 lots with a condex         proposed on each, lost one lot due to relocation of access entry from Beard;
        1.4    Then steep slopes ordinance was posted and the Lot yield went to 21 lots.
2       Community Context
        2.3    (See map compiled from tax map sheets 5 and 8)
        2.4    Located on south side of Beard Road, entrance to project is 1.3 miles from the                            NBFD.
        2.5    Entrance to the project is 900 feet from Route 77.
        2.6    Bounded on south by Hills. County 4H Foundation, on north by low density                                  residential and agricultural uses.  The Railroad trail and protected river corridor also                border this project on the south.
3       Project Objective
        3.3    The applicant appreciates the opportunity to work with the Planning Board,                                Conservation Commission, and the Selectmen in designing a safe and attractive                   development that will be an asset to the town with:

                    3.11  42 new condominium dwelling units in single-family structures (existing                                lot 52-1, previously approved, is to be merged with the remainder of lot 52);
3.12  single family buildings to have an attached 2-car garage;
3.13  one structure for use as a “community” building for social and business           activities;
3.14  Several structures are proposed for use as motor coach and boat storage for       unit owners (these may be declared limited common areas and have not been       sited).
3.15  The declaration may state that common areas may be used for trail         development and for long-term forest growth with a forest management plan.
4       Land Characteristics
        4.10 Topography
                         4.11 mapped from data gathered on the ground and by aerial survey methods with                                          5’ interval contour lines;
                         4.12 slope analysis shows > 25% areas comprising 16.34 acres and >      15% and <                               25% comprising 35.52 acres (slopes delineated on the plan are as defined in                             proposed zoning change);       
                         4.13 76.26 acres remain with slope less than 15%;      

              4.2       Soils:
                4.21 mapped on site in accordance with Site Specific Soil Mapping standards by                                  Peter Schauer, CSS;
                         4.22 forty test pits have been interpreted and percolation tests have been conducted,                           tests shallowest to bedrock (37” to 48”) found on northwest part of lot 50,    
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, cont.

                         other tests five feet or deeper overall;
                         4.23 percolation tests range from 3 minutes to 20 minutes per inch, averaging 10       
                         minutes per inch;
                         4.24 about 5 acres of soil in the northwest portion has group 2 soil (Canton), well                             drained, deep, and with no restrictive layer;
                         4.25 about 5 acres of Pillsbury soil (group 5) poorly drained, deep, and with no                                restrictive layer;
                         4.26 the remainder of the property has Marlow and Peru soils (group 3) moderately                               well drained and/or with a restrictive layer;
                         4.27 ESHWT depth ranges from 19” to 60” with an average depth of 32 inches;
                         4.28 free water was encountered in four test pits, at depths of 26”, 42”, 42” and 60”;
                         4.29 jurisdictional wetlands comprise 6.76 ac.

5       Conceptual plan
5.3     Development to have 42 detached condominium units with attached 2-car garage.
5.11    each new home will have two bedrooms;
5.12    the grouping of the homes in pods is intended to foster neighborhood relations and to sustain rural look along the access road;
5.13    the grouping of dwellings is intended to favor common septic systems and common wells;
5.14    each single family dwelling unit and the community building will have sprinkler systems installed:
5.15    residential construction will be “stick built”;
5.2     all facilities to be maintained by a management company owned by the applicant;
                 5.21 services by the company may include snow removal from common driveways,                            parking areas, and the emergency access way;
                 5.22 additional services on landscaping and turf,
                 5.23 transportation services for residents,
                 5.24 shopping and errand services;
5.3    condo owners must be 55 years of age or older with no children allowed to reside in               the units;
5.4    The project density was calculated by using the Cluster Residential Development                   formula in the zoning ordinance;
                         5.41 gross tract area = 128.12 acres
                 5.42 deduction for roads and utilities (.15 X 128.12) = 19.22 acres;
                 5.43 deduction for wetlands = 6.76 acres;
                 5.44 deduction for very steep slopes = 16.34 acres;
                 5.45 128.12 – 19.22 – 16.34 – 6.76 = 85.80 acres net developable area;
                 5.46 85.80 acres/2 acres = 42.90 single family lots (rounded to 43 lots)
                 5.47 the lots that can be created under conventional lot sizing is 21 total on which                                    condex units can be placed resulting in 42 dwelling units.  Therefore, 42      
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, cont.

                         detached condominium units are equal in population density to other                                             development patterns allowed by our regulations.
                5.5    The applicant intends to build, maintain, and operate this project and will consider                       phasing the project to allow preparation of plans by the town for proving                               emergency services to the community of 55 year old + residents;
        5.7     The condominium concept allows the flexibility to site units with best view potential, the best soil and slope conditions, and with best solar access orientation.

6.0     Road System/Driveways
6.1     A traffic study has been commissioned;
6.2     The project will involve about 3,800 feet of new road (Road A) construction running from Beard Road to a cul-de-sac (road distance accumulated around cul-de-sac);
6.3     Additionally, the plan calls for Road B to be 1,850 feet in length running Road A to Beard Road,
6.4     Road A shall be constructed to Class V standards for acceptance by the Town.  Road B is intended, not as principle route of access for the project, but as emergency access owned and maintained by the condo.  The construction standard for Road B is not yet determined.
6.5     Road A will avoid slopes in the proposed ordinance except for a small area.
6.6     Road B will cross 15% slopes for a distance of 190 feet.
7.0                  Utilities serving the development will be underground within the limits of the Town road                right-of-way, or by easement on the common land;
8.0          Process
           8.1  Applicant needs lots of discussion with Fire Wards for guidance on fire protection                                and for driveway standards and emergency access road standard.               
        8.2  How does Planning Board want to handle this application?
                        8.21 Subdivision ordinance does not appear to specifically apply to condominiums.
                        8.22 Site Plan Review regulations seem to be more relevant (Section 1).
                        8.23 Statute appears to say that subdivision ordinance does not apply unless it                                         specifically addresses condominiums.
                                                                    ----------  
        The Chairman asked why Road A could not be run up to Road B.  Bob Todd, LLS, explained that Road B was intended to be a private way that would be used by the resident manager to access the units.  He added that in keeping Road B private it would take the maintenance burden away from the Town.  In viewing the plan the Chairman thought that the design layout of the driveways seemed a large burden for a private drive.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this was not an unusual design concept and that an equipped facility would be responsible for the maintenance of the road.  Rick Martin added that the development would be viewed as a co-ownership maintained by an association.
        Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., asked if all residents of the proposed development were required to be 55 years of age or older.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, cont.

correct and that no children were allowed as managed by the condo association who would have jurisdictional power.  Interested party, Paul Golding asked how that rule could be enforced if the
residents owned their property.  Rick Martin replied that he could not say there were never cases of children in 55 + communities but did not think such a community would be tempting to would-be owners with young children.  The Chairman asked if there were regulations which specified that children could be prohibited from living in a 55 + community.  Rick Martin replied there were not because that would be considered discriminatory, however, the intent of the design was that at least one owner of a unit should be 55 or older.  Dave Woodbury did not think the Board would have the power to enforce sales of the units only to individuals 55 and older.  Bob Todd, LLS, clarified that the applicant would volunteer to market the project as a 55 + community.  Dave Woodbury noted that sales to younger individuals could not be prevented.  Amy Alexander explained that she raised this point because accommodations for school bus travel would need to be addressed in the event children ever lived within the 55+ community proposed by the applicant.
        Dave Woodbury questioned the 3,800 foot cul-de-sac length, which exceeded Town standards.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the applicant had attempted to minimize the risk of this length by providing an alternate access other than the primary access.  He added that the secondary access would be built to Class V standards but did not want it suggested as a primary access due to its drainage and slope issues.  Bob Todd, LLS, added this was the reason the secondary road would not be paved to Beard Road as it was in permeable condition and in turn would not encourage every day use by owners in the community.  Dave Woodbury asked why long cul-de-sac lengths were discouraged.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this was an emergency access issue and explained that if the roadway became blocked for some reason such as a downed tree the units beyond that point would be cut off from access.  James Nordstrom added that the cul-de-sac length issue was based on a discussion the Planning Board held with the Board of Fire Wards relevant to emergency vehicle response times and accessibility.  The Chairman added that the length of fire hose had also been a consideration at one time.  Don Duhaime asked how philosophies regarding cul-de-sac lengths could be changed now when the cul-de-sac lengths for subdivisions had been limited to 1,500 feet.  Dave Woodbury asked how adequate Road B was for emergency access as it did not meet the physical requirements imposed by the Board.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the applicant could seek the Fire Wards opinion on that matter.  Dave Woodbury stated the Fire Ward’s approval of Road B would make a positive difference.  Sarah Hogan asked if a full time ambulance would be required in the Town in the proposed case of 41 units with residents 55 and older.  Dave Woodbury replied that was a fair question given that the current volunteer ambulance personnel was already stressed and a community of individuals aged 55 and older would be expected to generate more emergency calls.  Paul Golding asked how fire emergencies would be addressed.  The Chairman replied that the units would all be installed with fire sprinkler systems, however, the Board had not yet heard back from the Fire Wards regarding their risk assessment of this plan.
        Rick Martin explained that the intent of the project was to aid baby boomers 55 and older in finding an attractive and affordable housing option, increasing the tax base to the Town, and
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, cont.

affecting a lower impact than a full subdivision with children, which he hoped the Board would recognize.  The Chairman replied the Board recognized the applicant’s intent.  Rick Martin went
on to state that he proposed the idea of detached units versus double unit structures because of concerns previously raised by abutters and so that the project would blend better with the surrounding characteristics of the Town.
        The Chairman stated he would be interested to see the feasibility of Road B becoming a Town road, which would eliminate the cul-de-sac length issue and also questioned what technical problems would need to be considered in order to do this.  He added that Road B could be a one-way road to service emergency vehicles only and may also not need to be as wide as Road A.  James Nordstrom agreed.  Rick Martin replied he would have no issue with that option.  Jay Marden stated that he was impressed by the applicant’s change to a cluster type development and more pleased with the unused and undeveloped land that would remain.  He added that he was interested to know how that common land would be set aside and controlled.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied the applicant had tried to contact the Conservation Commission regarding the subject of the common land and would also seek the opinion of the Piscataquog Watershed Association (PWA), but stressed that the common land would be open to the use of all owners within the 55+ community and its usage dictated in the Condominium Declaration.  He added that the common land could be further encumbered by a conservation easement, which would be discussed with the PWA.
        The Chairman stated that he would prefer that Road B became a Town road, which would solve the cul-de-sac length issue.  Dave Woodbury added that the emergency service aspects of the plan required consultation with the Fire Wards.  The Chairman noted that a 3,800 foot cul-de-sac was a problem and the Board was willing to work with the applicant to arrive at a solution of acceptable traffic flow within the development.  Roc Larochelle asked if the grades had been considered for Road B.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that there was one area of 15% slope and a stretch of road at a 10% grade.  Roc Larochelle asked if that stretch exceeded 10% at any point.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied it did not.  Roc Larochelle thought sight distance would be comprised if Road B was a two-way road.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied Road B was not intended to be a two-way road and Rick Martin concurred.  Roc Larochelle questioned the stability of a gravel road with a 10% grade.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that Road B would be gravel from its crest point to Beard Road and the remainder would be paved as they were attempting to eliminate or reduce runoff.  Roc Larochelle thought issues might still arise in regards to the paving of Road B.
        Willard Dodge state that as Director of the 4H Foundation which comprised 100 acres of abutting land to this project he was encouraged by the new concept of the applicant’s development as it allowed more open space on the site.  He added that he was dismayed by comments from the audience regarding the possibility of children in the 55+ community and felt the applicant was making a good effort at a palatable design.  Willard Dodge agreed that the plan needed some more attention regarding the road design but felt its concept was a good one in regards to the tax base for the Town.  Amy Alexander wished to note that she had brought up the issue of children only to make the Board aware of the consequences.  Paul Golding stated he had copies of letters from real estate brokers who confirmed the abutters’ properties would be
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, cont.

devalued if the applicant’s project came to fruition.  He asked if the Board would consider these letters.  The Chairman replied that the Board would read the letters but noted that the applicant
had a right to build on his property.
        The Planning Assistant wished to clarify that there were no lot lines on the plans.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the only lot lines would be the inside walls of the units.  The Planning Assistant questioned how that configuration was allowed by the Subdivision Regulations.  James Nordstrom explained that State law dictated that a condominium development could not be prohibited in an area where the local Subdivision Regulations allowed for a conventional subdivision.  Bob Todd, LLS, added that the Steep Slopes Ordinance would generate more of these scenarios going forward as land could then be used in a more flexible manner.  The Chairman stated that he found it helpful that the applicant had previously shown what a conventional subdivision would provide to the site versus this new design alternative.  Roc Larochelle noted that at the applicant’s previous hearing with the Board it was mentioned that Beard Road would be improved from the site entrance to Route 77.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was correct and was still the case.  Roc Larochelle stated he would like to obtain a copy of the plans for the Road Committee.
        Tom Clap stated that he would be the closest abutter to this project and wanted to know the procedure for bonding his well in the case of a blasting issue.  The Chairman assured Tom Clap that there was no relationship between blasting and well damage.  Rick Martin added that 90 test pits were dug and ideal lot locations had been chosen which in most areas would not require blasting.
        Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the Subdivision Ordinance and Site Plan Review regulations did not specifically apply to condominiums and added that Statute #356 stated in this case an application should be considered under Site Plan Review.  He asked if this was a fair assumption.  James Nordstrom replied that he believed a Residential Site Plan Review was the only alternative.  Bob Todd, LLS, stated that Section #1 of the Subdivision Ordinance mentioned condominiums but was vague in its subsequent detail.  He asked if the applicant should file a new application specific to condominiums and if the fees paid to date could be transferred to that application.  The Chairman first asked if the community building was part of the density calculation for the plan.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied it was not as it was considered non-residential and part of the infrastructure only.  Amy Alexander asked if the caretaker for the development would reside in one of the units.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that would be the case.  James Nordstrom stated that he preferred this newly designed concept over the conventional design as it preserved open space.  The Chairman agreed and added that he would like to see the issue of the 3,800 foot cul-de-sac eliminated with a “U: shaped road design built to Town standards.  Amy Alexander wished to clarify that the applicant would apply under a Site Plan Review with a road built to Town Standards.  The Chairman concurred.  An interested party asked why Beard Road would not be paved up to the Road B entrance.  The Chairman replied it would not be paved to that point because Road B was not considered a primary access point.  Dave Woodbury noted that there were plans to pave all of Beard Road in the near future.  Kim Burkhamer asked if the Environmental Impact study would still be required under a Residential Site Plan Review.  The
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, cont.

Chairman stated that it would and that while the format of the Residential Site Plan Review would be followed requirements of the Subdivision Regulations would also be applied.  Rick
Martin wished to confirm that the Board had no issue with the proposed roadway being built to Class V standards to the cul-de-sac and would consider the continuation of Road B to Beard Road at a lesser width.  Dave Woodbury believed Road B should still be considered an open question at this point in time.  The Chairman stated that he was inclined to lean in the direction of Rick Martin’s proposal for Road B but would need to be further sold on the idea.  Bob Todd, LLS, asked if the applicant was free to contact the Fire Wards independently of if a referral by the Board was required.  The Chairman replied that the applicant could independently contact the Fire Wards if they so chose.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Right Way Builders, Major   Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, 23 Lots, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/52      and 5/50, “R-A” District, to December 14, 2004, at 7:00 p.m.  Dave Woodbury seconded    the motion and it PASSED unanimously.           

SIZEMORE, PAUL
Compliance Hearing/Major Site Plan/Phase 1 of 3/NRSPR Amend and Expand existing
Gravel Display/Sales for existing Truck & Auto Repair Business
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/29-1
Commercial “Com” District

                The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was the applicant, Paul Sizemore.  No abutters or interested parties were in attendance.
        The Chairman stated that no issues had arisen at the recently held compliance site walk.  The Planning Assistant noted that all outstanding fees had been paid by the applicant.

                James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm that Paul Sizemore has complied with the first                         phase of the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to amend and expand                 the gravel display/sales area for the existing truck and auto body business in three                    phases located on NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/29-1, and to release              the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building                        Department.  Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

BURNHAM, TIMOTHY        Adjourned from 11/09/04
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Conditional Use Permit
Location: 49 Arrow Wood Drive
Tax Map/Lot #12/35-14
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
BURNHAM, cont.

                The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was the
applicant, Timothy Burnham and an abutter, Bill Connors.
                Timothy Burnham stated that since the last meeting Bob Todd, LLS, had provided more detail of the crossings to the plan and had also included the estimate for the construction of the culverts.  James Nordstrom explained that an estimate was needed for the cost to build the wetland crossing and not just the culverts.  He determined that 10% of the costs for grub clearing, silt fence, rip rap, hay bales and gravel equaled $1,800.00 and adding the $625.00 for culvert construction would equal $2,400.00 which would be the approximate estimate for the construction of the crossing.  Timothy Burnham agreed that was a reasonable estimate and submitted a personal check in that amount to the Board.

                James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application as complete, and to grant the                   Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of Timothy Burnham to dredge and fill                      approximately 618 s.f. of poorly drained soils for the construction of a driveway on                    property located at 49 Arrow Wood Road, known as Tax Map/Lot #12/35-14 as the                four conditions for granting the Permit have been found to exist, subject to the                                following conditions:

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1.      Submission of the financial security in the amount of $2,400.00 and in the form of a personal           check by November 30, 2005.

CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1.      Completion of the site improvements as related to the filling of approximately 618 s.f. of      poorly drained soils for driveway construction, as shown on the approved construction design plan.      
2.      The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon notification of the Planning Department by the applicant that the project has been completed, and a compliance hearing is held and confirms that the project has been satisfactorily completed by no later than June 1, 2005.  
        Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

CURTIS HILL, LLC        Adjourned from 10/26/04
Work Session/Design Review
Major Subdivision/7 Lots
Location: Old Coach Road
Tax Map/Lot #10/3
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Art Siciliano, LLS, who represented the applicant.  Abutters and interested parties present were
CURTIS HILL, cont.

George St. John, Kevin St. John and Karen Kersting.
        Art Siciliano, LLS, asked the outcome of the Board’s joint meeting with the Fire Wards.  The Chairman replied that they had not received comments back from the Fire Wards regarding the applicant’s specific issue.  The Planning Assistant added that from that meeting with the Fire Wards amendments to the Building Code and Sprinkler Regulations had resulted.  James Nordstrom noted that the discussion at the Fire Wards meeting was of a more general nature and related to the Sprinkler Regulations rather than the applicant’s specific issue.  He added that from that meeting and opinions offered by Town Counsel he believed that the new structures should be sprinklered and that the note placed on the lot line adjustment plan for the existing homes within the subdivision had not been properly executed and, according to Town Counsel, was not binding to the applicant.  The Chairman agreed and stated that the Board would request the applicant to provide fire sprinkler systems to all new homes built in the subdivision.  Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that the applicant had previously offered to do so and still intended to provide sprinkler systems for each new home constructed.  He asked if the application could be approved now that this major hurdle had been cleared.  James Nordstrom explained that because the application was still considered to be in a preliminary phase the Board would need to act on that first.  He added that to date no formal submission of the application existed.  The Chairman noted that the applicant could next submit a final application that referenced the intent to provide fire sprinkler systems to all the new homes.  He added that he presumed one more meeting would be required with the applicant to address this item as there were no other outstanding issues.  James Nordstrom stated that the applicant should confirm that all the checklist items and waiver requests were addressed prior to submission of the final application.  The Planning Assistant stated that a waiver would be required for the Watershed Outline and Drainage Computations.
        Interested party, Kevin St. John asked how tonight’s decision regarding the applicant’s non-burden to provide fire water supply to the existing homes within the subdivision would affect those home owners, himself included, who had similar notes on their Site Plans that said a cistern would be required if they subdivided their property.  Dave Woodbury replied that an application would need to be submitted and reviewed by the Board before that question could be answered.  Kevin St. John stated that the Planning Board and the Board of Fire Wards had previously viewed an application he submitted that dealt with this issue.  He added that he had received an answer contrary to that of the applicant’s this evening.  The Chairman explained that going forward legal counsel would most probably be sought for applications with issues similar to the applicant’s that regarded fire water supply, however, the outcome would most likely be the same which would differ from the answer Kevin St. John received for his previous application.

        Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the preliminary plan of Curtis Hill, LLC, Major  Subdivision, 7 Lots, Location: Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #10/3, in the “R-A”  District.  James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.



VISTA ROAD, LLC Adjourned from 11/09/04
        Public Hearing /Major Subdivision/l4 Lots
        Location: Inkberry and Wilson Hill Roads
        Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5
        Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Brian Holt of Vista Road, LLC, and Jeff Kevan, PE, of T.F. Moran.  No abutters were present.
        Jeff Kevan, PE, stated he had received and reviewed Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s, comments on the plan review.  He noted that he still needed to address some minor corrections but was submitting copies of the plan with corrections to date this evening.
        Jeff Kevan, PE, addressed the requirement that the plan show wet areas and bodies of water within 400 feet of the property perimeter.  He added that he thought this was unnecessary as there were several plans that abutted this project, which showed the same information.  Jeff Kevan, PE, further added that to add another 400 feet around the plan drawing would increase its size by eight inches and alter the scale considerably.  Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., stated that the applicant could request a waiver for this item.  James Nordstrom agreed and stated he would entertain such a waiver request based on the knowledge previously obtained from surrounding projects concerning the wet areas and water bodies.
        Jeff Kevan, PE, noted that he had added or made slight changes to details of the graded lots on the plan, which had not yet been reviewed by Dufresne-Henry, Inc.  He added that the lots on the right side of the development (off Wilson Hill Road) would be more difficult to grade and that several would require the creation of a platform with the lots placed tightly against the front yard setbacks.  Jeff Kevan, PE, noted that lots on the left side of the development would not require grading and had various driveway layout options.  He added that the eight lots that approached the cul-de-sac would not have grading issues and most could have walk-out basements on the uphill sides.  Jeff Kevan, PE, stated this information would be added to the plan.  He added that the Drainage Report had also been updated and would be forwarded to Dufresne-Henry, Inc.  Dave Woodbury asked how the Steep Slopes Ordinance interfaced with the plan.  Jeff Kevan, PE, replied that because the plan was accepted as complete prior to the posting of the Steep Slopes Ordinance it was not bound to its requirements.  James Nordstrom asked Jeff Kevan, PE, if he knew what the effects to the plan would have been.  Jeff Kevan, PE, replied he did not know.  Dave Woodbury asked when the applicant’s plan was accepted as complete versus the posting date of the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  The Planning Assistant replied that the newly revised plan was accepted as complete on September 14, 2004, and the Steep Slopes Ordinance was posted on November 12, 2004.  The Chairman asked if the document review by Town Counsel had been completed.  The Planning Assistant replied that this was a pending item.
        Jeff Kevan, PE, stated that the State Permits for the originally designed subdivision were resubmitted to amend the approval.  He added that the Site Specific was initiated today and was expected back soon.
        Jay Marden asked what the vertical pin stripes represented on the plans.  Jeff Kevan, PE, replied that this represented land that would remain open space.  Jay Marden questioned the
VISTA ROAD, 14 LOTS, cont.

inclusion of the five acre backlot illustrated on the plans.  Jeff Kevan, PE, replied that this backlot was present on the plans from the advent of the design and the Chairman concurred.  Jay Marden asked who would be responsible for the control of the common land given to the Town and what would be the extent of that control.  Jeff Kevan, PE, replied that a neighborhood association would be established and control would be limited to the options of natural trails and passive recreational use as the common land would be required to remain in its natural state.  Jay Marden stated it was his understanding that the common land on this plan was to connect to the open space to the north that would be part of the applicant’s future 50 lot subdivision.  Brian Holt replied that was not the case.  Jay Marden stated that by not connecting the two open space areas wildlife would not be able to traverse easily.  Jeff Kevan, PE, replied that the developments could not be expected to control each other’s plans for open space and that each application needed to be considered on an individual basis.  Jay Marden believed the applicant had previously stated at a prior meeting that the two areas of open space would tie in with each other.  Brian Holt replied that they could tie in for the purpose of walking trails.
        The Chairman stated he was concerned about the communication history between the applicant and the Town Engineer and stressed that they needed to find a way to work together more productively.  Brian Holt stated they would make efforts to do so.  He asked if the Driveway Permits could be considered at tonight’s meeting.  The Chairman replied that he preferred the remaining issues of the application be addressed first.  Brian Holt stated a letter had been forwarded to the Board that stated John Riendeau, Road Agent had approved of the driveway layouts on the plan.  The Chairman replied asked that the letter be forwarded to John Riendeau for his signature and submitted back to the Board.
        Don Duhaime stated that the Board should consider the plan’s traffic impacts at the intersection of Wilson Hill Road and Bedford Road.  The Chairman agreed and stated he would like John Riendeau to consider that area of impact also.  Roc Larochelle asked if the Road Committee could obtain a copy of the plans.  Jeff Kevan, PE, replied that he thought the Road Committee had been given a set previously.
        James Nordstrom asked Amy Alexander if she had any comments.  Amy Alexander replied hat she was concerned about the lower lots on the plan and how their driveway entry points could be satisfactorily designed off Wilson Hill Road.  Roc Larochelle agreed and added that the grade off Wilson Hill in that area was 7% and guard-railed with proposed turns into driveways with 8% grades.  Amy Alexander noted that many cuts would be required in the existing guard rail on Wilson Hill for the driveway entrances.  Roc Larochelle asked how the cut ends of the guard rails would be terminated.  Jeff Kevan, PE, replied that the cut ends of the guard rails would be rounded off.  Brian Holt added that the guard rail cuts would be handled in a similar fashion to those in the Inkberry Road subdivision.  Amy Alexander commented that Lot #’s 7 and 8 needed close scrutiny as their entrances would be accessed off a roadway at a 7% grade.  Brian Holt stated that they were here to work productively with everyone and found it aggravating to listen to comments about the inadequacy of this plan when they had made great efforts and compromises to revise their original “S” shaped road plan of the previous year.  Amy Alexander replied that she had only performed one plan review on the applicant’s new design
VISTA ROAD, 14 LOTS, cont.

and had provided one set of comments on the revised plan thus far.  She noted that she had made every efforts to complete her review of the applicant’s Drainage Report by November 19, 2004, even though it was provided late on November 17, 2004.  Amy Alexander added that she was offended by the applicant’s insinuation that she was not working productively with them.  Brian Holt stated that he understood and appreciated Amy Alexander’s efforts.  Amy Alexander stated that she wanted this plan to result in a good development but still harbored concerns regarding certain items on the plan and was therefore, trying to anticipate issues and look at all possible scenarios.  Jeff Kevan, PE, stated that he would provide a clean set of plans to Amy Alexander by the following Tuesday or Wednesday that would not show steep slopes into the driveways and would illustrate a gradual roadway grade.  Roc Larochelle stated that he had been present at the original Site Plan review and as a member of the Road Committee, would work with Amy Alexander to complete the applicant’s current plan review.  Brian Holt stated they would follow up with Amy Alexander prior to the next meeting with the Board.  Jeff Kevan, PE, asked Roc Larochelle what items the Road Committee was interested in.  Roc Larochelle replied that the Committee would look at access points off the roadway and safety factors.  

James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Vista Road, LLC, Major Subdivision, 14 Lots, Location: Inkberry and Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, “R-A” District, to December 28, 2004, at 7:30 p.m.  Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.         

VISTA ROAD, LLC 
        Public Hearing /Major Subdivision/2 Lots
        Location: Wilson Hill Road
        Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5-1
        Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Brian Holt of Vista Road, LLC, and Jeff Kevan, PE, of T.F. Moran.  No abutters were present.
        Jeff Kevan, PE, explained that at a previous meeting with the Board the applicant had been requested to file a separate subdivision application for the conventional two lot parcel exclusive of the cluster subdivision application in the same tax parcel.  He explained that this new application separated out the five acre backlot and included a plan note, which stated no further subdivision of Lot # 6/40-5-1 was permitted.  Jeff Kevan, PE, noted that the driveway gradings for the backlot were now shown with a narrower width.  James Nordstrom and Dave Woodbury questioned the existing dug well on the backlot.  Brian Holt replied that the well was currently used by the existing farm from which the land was previously subdivided.
        The Chairman stated that waiver requests were needed for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Traffic Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies, and three paper print copies of the soils map.  Jeff Kevan, PE, replied that the soils map was shown on the topographic plan.  The Chairman stated that sprinklers would be required in all the homes per the Public
VISTA ROAD, 2 LOTS, cont.

Hearing on the amendments to the Building Code held at 7:30 p.m. this evening.  Jeff Kevan, PE, replied that the standard language for the inclusion of fire sprinkler systems was on Note #11 of the plan.  Brian Holt added that this language was also present in the deed.  The Planning Assistant asked if copies of the Declaration of Covenants were still required.  The Chairman and James Nordstrom replied that they were required until the amendments to the Building Code were accepted and that this should also be noted to Dennis Sarette, Building Inspector.  The applicant verbally requested waivers for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Traffic, Fiscal, and Environmental Impact Studies, to be followed up in writing.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the verbal waiver requests for the Certified Erosion    and Sediment Control Plan and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies.  Dave   Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Vista Road, LLC, Major       Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Wilson Hill and Inkberry Roads, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5,     “R-A” District, as complete.  Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED   unanimously.

        The Chairman stated that the waiver requests and the Driveway Permits would need to be submitted.  Brian Holt stated he had submitted Driveway Permits for all lots of both applications and asked if this was acceptable.  The Planning Board Assistant replied that it was.  The Chairman added that the slope easements for the existing driveway would need to be incorporated into those of the cluster plan.

Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn the application of Vista Road, LLC, Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Wilson Hill and Inkberry Roads, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, “R-A” District, to December 28, 2004, at 8:00 p.m.  James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

This will be an informational session with Vista Road, LLC, to discuss a potential Subdivision of Tax Map/Lot’s #6/33 and 6/40-2.

        The Chairman read the informational session description.  Present in the audience were Eric Mitchell, LLS, and Brian Holt.  
        Eric Mitchell, LLS stated that he was before the Board at a previous meeting to discuss the proposal of this open space cluster development.  He reconfirmed that the density calculation was 124 acres divided by two to equal 62 total units and 50 acres of open space.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, stated that Concept #1 proposed 57 units and 82 acres of open space where only 50 acres were required.  He added that this concept differed slightly from what was preciously presented to the Board in that several more lots were proposed at the cul-de-sac and two additional lots to fronted on the Class VI portion of Wilson Hill Road.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, explained that in
VISTA ROAD, Informational Session, cont.

Concept #2 the proposed road cut entirely through the parcel, crossed a brook and arrived at Wilson Hill Road.  He added that density permitted 62 lots with 50 acres of open space required, however, 70 acres were proposed.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, noted this concept was initially viewed as a difficult one due to the amount of road construction needed and improvements that would be required to Wilson Hill Road and wetland crossings.  He added that his client requested that the feasibility of this concept be reaffirmed as a possibility for a cluster design.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, returned to the first concept with 57 units and posed two questions.  He stated the first question for the Board was whether lots could be built on the Class VI portion of Wilson Hill Road.  Secondly, Eric Mitchell, LLS, asked if the proposed cul-de-sac length, which exceeded 1,500 feet, was a waivable item.  He added that he had learned of the Steep Slopes Ordinance yesterday and presumed it would affect this concept’s design but was unsure how.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, stated that he had taken out the 25% slope areas in the cluster example of Concept #1, however, some 25% still slopes remained in the area of the existing farm house and a wetland crossing.  He added that because the proposed lots were under two acres he was unsure how the 25% slope factor applied and noted that the applicant preferred to build lots that would be individually owned with individual septic systems and a home owner’s association that would control the open space.  James Nordstrom stated that one qualifier of the Steep Slopes Ordinance said that elevation changes must remain constant with a 20 foot change or greater in order to apply the 25% slope factor, otherwise the ordinance was very similar to other slope ordinances within southern New Hampshire.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, stated that according to the Ordinance at least 1.5 acres of a two acre lot were required to be flatter than 15% in slope and this design concept did not deal with two acre lots, therefore, he questioned what measure should be applied.  James Nordstrom explained that the Steep Slope Ordinance was not intended to supercede the Cluster Ordinance and was geared more toward standard subdivisions.  He added that if Concept #1 remained a cluster design under the Zoning Ordinance the passing of the Steep Slopes Ordinance would not affect it but would if the design became conventional.  James Nordstrom suggested that the requirements of the Cluster Ordinance should be followed for this concept.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, stated this answered his question and added that the issues of additional cul-de-sac length and building on a Class VI road still remained.  Dave Woodbury asked why the Steep Slopes Ordinance would not apply to a cluster development.  James Nordstrom explained that within the Cluster Ordinance an inherent deduction of slope already existed, therefore, to apply the Steep Slopes Ordinance would be redundant.  Dave Woodbury asked which application was more restrictive and shouldn’t the more restrictive application apply.  He added that he did not want the applicant to be misled early in the design process and felt this question should mature before a final answer was given by the Board.  James Nordstrom agreed.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, stated that he had spoken with Bob Todd, LLS, after his own presentation this evening who informed him that he had made changes to his client’s project proposal to comply with the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  He asked if the fact that Bob Todd, LLS’s, plan involved lots of reduced dimension was effective to the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  Dave Woodbury was unsure of this made a difference in involving the Steep Slopes Ordinance and thought it would be anomalous to suggest that by reducing a lot below two acres the applicant could gain an advantage over the
VISTA ROAD, Informational Session, cont.

Steep Slopes Ordinance.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, agreed but added that by example, advantages were gained with cluster lots over conventional where open space was gained for the Town and the lots of reduced dimension by the cluster design were not held to the frontage and setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.  Dave Woodbury clarified that these open questions should to be further discussed as the design process ensued.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, asked how his client should proceed with the design given the questions he presented.  The Chairman felt the Steep Slopes Ordinance might apply and asked Amy Alexander her thoughts on the matter.  Amy Alexander agreed.  
        Amy Alexander then noted that in her experience the towns she dealt with did not allow town roads to run through private condominium complexes.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, replied that he had seen both scenarios of public or private roads for condominium developments along with lots of reduced dimensions or no lot lines.  He referenced a 1986 condominium project done in Derry, NH where the town had recently decided to take over the road maintenance for that complex.  
        Eric Mitchell, LLS, returned to his question of how the Steep Slope Ordinance requirement that 75% of the lot had to be at 15% slope or less on lots of reduced dimension could be applied if the lot lines were removed from a plan.  James Nordstrom replied this seemed to be a loop hole in the Ordinance.  Brian Holt believed the main road of their design concept would need to be a Town road due to traffic issues.  The Chairman asked if the applicant was proposing condominiums in their concept.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, replied that was not the initial intent but it loomed as an option after he learned of Bob Todd, LLS’s, presentation where the roadway became the only remaining issue.  The Chairman noted that the proposal Bob Todd, LLS, had presented this evening did not involve a through road and was built off of a Class V dirt roadway.  Brian Holt asked if the two additional lots proposed off the Class VI portion of Wilson Hill Road would be allowed.  The Chairman replied that building on a Class VI roadway was not generally permitted.  Dave Woodbury replied that building on a Class VI road allowed in limited situations and involved a release from the Town of New Boston, but thought this scenario presented a serious issue because Wilson Hill Road went straight uphill from a Class V to Class VI classification.  Amy Alexander offered an example of case in another town that had permitted a building permit on a Class VI road and when the house was sold to a family with a handicapped child the school bus was required to traverse that roadway.  Dave Woodbury added that the condition of Wilson Hill Road in that area would still be steep irregardless of the funds spent on erosion control and the Selectmen would be unlikely to offer their approval.  James Nordstrom asked if the plan delineated jurisdictional wetlands than ran through the portion of the Wilson Hill Road right-of way.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, replied that it did and there had been discussion regarding improvements to nature trails in that area, however, wetland impacts had not yet been assessed.  He added that some of the wet areas were the resulted of a lack of road maintenance on the Class VI portion of Wilson Hill Road.  
        Dave Woodbury asked the proposed length of the cul-de-sac for the design concept.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, replied that the length was proposed at approximately 1,650 feet.  Dave Woodbury thought there would be a burden on the applicant to prove the need for the extended
VISTA ROAD, Informational Session, cont.

length.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, thought this cluster design with 80 acres of open space, less environmental impact, economically increased density and no road to the bottom of the hill was a better option than the initial concept of a roadway to the bottom of the hill to Route 13, 50 grid lots and no open space.
        Amy Alexander asked if 20 acres of wetlands and 24 acres of steep slopes were approximated or calculated on the plan proposal.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, replied these figures were calculated and rounded to the nearest acre exclusive of the 20 foot elevation change stipulated in the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  He added that the correct scale of the cul-de-sac length involved 1,350 feet to the throat and 300 feet around the cul-de-sac circle.  James Nordstrom noted that an amendment the Subdivision Regulations on August 10, 2004, changed the maximum dead end length of proposed cul-de-sacs from 600 to 1,000 feet as measured to the throat.
        Jay Marden asked how the open space of Concept #1 would tie in with that of the applicant’s hearing held prior to this one.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, replied that the two green spaces would not be physically connected unless by walking trails.  Brian Holt stated that a 100 foot setback on the backlots which faced the new proposed road would separate the two open space areas.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, replied that plans were not yet developed for a recreational trail but areas had been considered through logging trails or by a foot bridge or trail against the back lot lines.  Jay Marden stated he was concerned that the open space Vista Road LLC’s proposed 14 acre subdivision was land locked without any northern access.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, replied that he had not worked on Vista Road’s 14 lot plan but noted that while the open space tracts proposed may not be a great benefit to wildlife such as moose and deer it was still an advantageous scenario for the Town.  Amy Alexander asked if the Conservation Commission had yet defined or outlined wildlife corridors within the Town.  Jay Marden replied that item was being worked on as a part of the Town’s Master Plan and was not yet been completed.
        Dave Woodbury asked what the objective of tonight’s meeting was and added that he was not impressed with the rough design concept.  He suggested that the applicant return with a more definite proposal.  The Chairman noted that Eric Mitchell, LLS, wished to gain the Board’s opinion before continuing with a more solid design proposal and that tonight’s discussion was merely an informational session.  The Chairman felt the Steep Slopes Ordinance would have to have some effect on the lots and did not think the Board would be able to approve the project as a condominium classification because of the through roadway.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, thought that historically zero lot line developments had not been popular as they limited owner options.  He stated that he was still unsure as to how the Steep Slopes Ordinance should be applied to the design concept.  The Chairman noted that he felt the Ordinance would apply and noted Bill Drescher, Esq., had added a paragraph to the amendments to the Ordinance which supported his opinion.  Dave Woodbury read the paragraph phrase added by Bill Drescher: “…to apply to the construction or development of any building lot not exempted hereby and is also intended to govern the manner in which the Planning Board approves of subdivisions and site plans.”  Dave Woodbury thought the applicant should further seek the advice of their respective counsel as to how the Steep Slopes Ordinance should be applied to their design concept.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, then clarified that in order to proceed with the design concept the applicant would be
VISTA ROAD, Informational Session, cont.

required to abide by the terms of the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  He asked if the Ordinance would not apply for condominium projects with no lot lines.  The Chairman stated that there would be a lot involved somehow because a Building Permit would be required.  Dave Woodbury felt Eric Mitchell, LLS, was seeking concessions tonight that could be used to the applicant’s advantage in the future and felt they should seek their counsel’s advice on the application of the Ordinance.  The Chairman stated he was willing to freely advise Eric Mitchell, LLS, that the Steep Slopes Ordinance applied to their design concept.  Eric Mitchell, LLS, asked if he could obtain a copy of the Steep Slopes Ordinance which the Planning Board Assistant provided.      

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 23, 2004

1.      Approval of the minutes of October 12, 2004, with or without changes.
        (Distributed at October 26, 2004, meeting)
        
        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of October 12, 2004, and October 26,       2004, as presented with highlighted changes submitted at the pre-draft level.  Don      Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

2.      Approval of the minutes of October 26, 2004, with or without changes. (Distributed at the November 9, 2004, meeting.)

        This item was acted upon in Miscellaneous Business Item #1.
        
3.      Distribution of minutes of November 9, 2004, with or without changes, for approval at the December 14, 2004, meeting.
        
4.      Endorsement of a Site Review Agreement, for Lynn O. Strong, Bradley Wilde       Educational Ventures, LLC, Map/Lot #3/49, 643 North Mast Road, by the Planning  Board Chairman.
        
        The Planning Board Chairman endorsed the above noted Site Review Agreement.  

5.      Endorsement of a Site Plan, for Michael P. Gagnon, Mr. Gee’s Tire, Map/Lot #3/82, NH    
        Route 114, by the Planning Board Chairman.

        The Planning Board Chairman endorsed the above noted Site Plan.

6.      Signature required for the revised approval of a Driveway Permit Application for Indian Falls, LLC, Indian Falls Road, Map/Lot #12/89-11, by the Planning Board Chairman.
(Drive by prior to meeting-no copies)
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

The Planning Assistant explained that the formerly proposed common driveway for Lot #’s 12/89-11 and 12/89-13, would now be a separate driveway for each lot.  The Chairman signed the above noted revised approval.

7.      Compliance drive by for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, driveways, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-3, 6/32-7, 6/32-9, and 6/32-10, located on Popple Road. (Drive by prior to meeting)

        Don Duhaime stated that he had viewed the driveways and they appeared to be acceptable.  Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., added she had also seen the driveways and was in agreement.

8.      Reminder: Conditional Use Permit for Timothy Burnham, 49 Arrow Wood Drive, Tax  
        Map/Lot #12/35-14, for the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to meeting)

        The Chairman stated that the above item was acted upon at the time of the applicant’s hearing earlier this evening.

9.      A copy of an article from New Hampshire Town & City, November-December issue, Re: How To Get the Development You Planned, was distributed for the Board’s information.

10.     A copy of a letter dated November 1, 2004, from the State of NH, DES, to all Municipal  
        Offices, Re: Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act-RSA 483-B, was distributed for      
        the Board’s information.
a.)     A copy of a letter from State of NH, DES, to Michael P. Nolin, Commissioner, DES, from Attorney General’s office, Re: Shoreland Protection Act, was distributed for the Board’s information.
b.)     A copy of The Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, Statute RSA 483-B, and Rules Env-Ws 1400, received November 12, 2004, from the State of NH, DES, was distributed for the Board’s information.

11.     A copy of a flyer received November 12, 2004, from the Environmental Protection         
        Agency, to Town of New Boston, Re: Free workshop on EPCRA reporting requirements,       
        was distributed for the Board’s information.

12.     Compliance drive by for inspection of remaining compliance item (lighting) for Paul     
        Sizemore, 150 Weare Road, Tax map/Lot # 5/29-1. (Drive by prior to meeting)

        The Chairman noted that the above item was acted upon at the time of the applicant’s hearing earlier this evening.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

13.     A copy of a letter dated November 18, 2004, from Michele Brown, Planning Board  
        Assistant, to Jane L. Carr, Re: Home Business Qualification, was distributed for the    
        Board’s information.

        The Planning Assistant explained that the applicant was under the impression that she could change the status of her home business which had been approved for day care only.  James Nordstrom stated that this issue began in July of 2004 and the applicant appeared to be confused.  The Planning Assistant noted the applicant had been to the Planning Department earlier in the year and she had advised her of the conflict but never saw her again.  The Chairman stated that Dennis Sarette, Building Inspector, should be notified to issue a Cease and Desist Order to the applicant.

14.     A copy of a letter received November 18, 2004, from Betsy Dodge, Conservation   Commission, to Peter Beers, Re: Tax Map/Lot #15/8, proposed driveway, wetland   
        impact, was distributed for the Board’s information.    

        The Planning Assistant explained that Cindy Wilson, who owned the private way which Peter Beer’s driveway would be built off of, had requested a wetland impact review by the Conservation Commission as a formal follow-up.

15.     A copy of a letter received November 18, 2004, from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry,      
        Inc., to the New Boston Planning Department, Re: Indian Falls, Bond Reduction, was      
        distributed for the Board’s information.

The Planning Assistant stated that the amount was reduced from $429,314.11 to $279,314.11.  Amy Alexander noted that $150K was required to complete the project.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the bond reduction as captioned in the letter dated     
        November 18, 2004, by Dufresne-Henry, Inc.  Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and       
        it PASSED unanimously.

16.     Read File: Public Notice from the Town of Chester Planning Board, Re: Public Hearing    
        on December 1, 2004, Re: Subdivision, and Site Plan Applications.

17.     Endorsement required for a Subdivision Plan for Jonathan and Jessica Willard, Bedford   
        and Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot # 12/89-14 & 12/91.

        The Chairman and Vice Chairman endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.

18.     Planning Board Chairman signature required for Michael Gagnon’s Site Plan Agreement,    524 North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/82, Mr. Gee’s Tire Corp.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

        The Chairman signed the above Site Plan Agreement.

19.     Approval of changes to the September 14, 2004, meeting minutes, for the Board’s action.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the noted changes to the minutes of September  
        14, 2004.  Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        At 11:15 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn.  Dave Woodbury seconded the
        motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien,
Recording Clerk                                        Minutes Approved: