TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of 2004 Meetings
October 26, 2004
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members James Nordstrom, Travis Daniels, Bob Furey, ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom 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, Christine Pedzik, Art Siciliano, LLS, Sam Proctor, Mike Sullivan, Dan MacDonald, Dan Teague, Wayne Blassberg, Karen Kersting, Kevin St. John, George St. John, George Merrill, Carol McDougall, Mike Dahlberg, Daniel Donovan, Jr., Paul Aubin, Bob Todd, LLS, Mike Gagnon, Chris Beers, Cindy Wilson, Earney Mayo, Woody Woodland, Roger Dignard, Randy Parker, Rick Martin, Betsy Lake, Tom Clapp, Jay Marden, Janet Chamberlain, Pat and Elsie Golding, Brent Armstrong, Rock Larochelle and Sarah Hogan.
Public input session on the draft of Steep Slopes Conservation District Ordinance
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Kim Burkhamer and Christine Pedzik of the Steep Slopes Committee and an interested party Bob Todd, LLS. Kim Burkhamer stated that updates had been made to the draft according to input from the prior meeting and that a copy of the draft had also been reviewed by the Selectmen. She added that Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, had informed her he had no issues with the draft and that it was also understood by the Selectmen that Gordon Carlstrom was present for the Planning Board meetings at which the draft had been reviewed. Kim Burkhamer further added that the Road Agent had reviewed the draft and had no concerns but that Rock Larochelle of the Road Committee was concerned about the
mapping standard used for the Steep Slope Conservation Districts. She explained that Nic Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, had received the mapping standard from Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC), so that the slopes were delineated in proper percentages for moderate and very steep slopes. Kim Burkhamer notified the Road Committee that this mapping standard was to be used as a general guide and for visual reference and was now waiting for their reply. She added that the Conservation Committee approved of the draft but she was still awaiting input from Town Counsel and SNHPC.
The Chairman asked if there were any questions from the Board. James Nordstrom stated he had reviewed the revised draft and felt all input from the last Planning Board meeting and public input session had been applied. Kim Burkhamer noted she had added language to the draft, which stated delineation must be done by ground or aerial survey with contour intervals no greater than five feet, by a Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of New Hampshire with associated fees borne by the applicant. She added that the slope percentage breakdowns in Section B, District Boundaries, were changed from “…slopes of 15-25% and 25% and greater…” to “…equal to or greater than 15% up to 25% and 25% & greater…”. Kim Burkhamer noted that a sentence was added to the Incorrectly Designated Zones section of the draft which read: “Any necessary testing to clearly delineate questionable steep slope areas shall be based on an on-ground survey…” rather than an aerial survey in order to better
designate questionable slopes. James Nordstrom asked if Town Counsel had responded with
input for the draft. The Planning Assistant replied the draft was with Town Counsel and she
Steep Slopes Conservation District Ordinance draft, cont.
was awaiting his comments. She added that Town Counsel was aware of the posting
time line. Kim Burkhamer asked if it was necessary to first receive input from Town Counsel and SNHPC before moving forward with the draft. The Planning Board Assistant replied this
was the case and that the finalized draft would be placed on the Agenda for a public hearing on November 23, 2004 with posting two weeks prior on November 12, 2004. Kim Burkhamer asked if the draft ordinance was considered in effect on the posting date until the March, 2005 vote or if it would take effect at the time of the Public Hearing on November 23, 2004. James Nordstrom replied the draft ordinance was considered in effect when it was posted. The Chairman noted that legal and technical changes could be made to the draft, and as long as its content was not compromised, it could still be posted. James Nordstrom agreed and added that if only non-substantial changes were required by Town Counsel no additional public input sessions would be warranted. The Planning Assistant clarified that the posting needed
to occur 120 days prior to the Town vote. James Nordstrom noted this posting should occur the first week of November, 2004. The Planning Assistant stated she would check with Town Counsel and SNHPC within the next week regarding their progress on the draft review. The Chairman stated he would be inclined to have the posting occur on time if the reviews highlighted grammar changes only. Bob Furey confirmed that at posting the Steep Slopes Ordinance would be considered approved until disapproved at the March, 2005 Town vote. The Chairman concurred. He then asked Bob Todd, LLS, if he had any further comments regarding the draft. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he did not and had reviewed the draft several times and found it satisfactory. James Nordstrom felt the Planning Board could also offer their official approval of the draft. The Chairman agreed and also felt the Board would recommend the draft ordinance for approval.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2004
1. Approval of the minutes of September 28, 2004, with or without changes.
(Distributed at October 12, 2004, meeting)
James Nordstrom stated he had no issues with the minutes dated September 28, 2004, as long as the mark ups from the pre-draft had been addressed. The Planning Board Assistant replied the appropriate corrections had been made.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of September 28, 2004, as presented with highlighted changes. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Schedule Compliance Site Walk for Paul Sizemore, 1st phase to expand existing gravel display/sales area for existing Truck and auto repair business, NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/29-1, for the Board’s action.
The Chairman questioned the “gravel display/sales area” terminology. The Planning
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
Assistant clarified that the applicant’s business would be done in phases and carried the title of
gravel display/sales according to Zoning.
The Compliance Site Walk was scheduled for November 6, 2004, at 8:00 a.m.
3. Schedule Compliance Site Walk for Cell Tower, Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/21.
The Compliance Site Walk was scheduled for November 6, 2004, at 8:30 a.m.
4. Schedule Compliance Site Walk for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, driveways, Tax
Map/Lot # 6/32-2, 32-3, 32-8, 32-18, 32-19, 32-20, 32-21, located on Wilson Hill Road
and Popple Road (or would a drive-by suffice).
Bob Furey stated that Lot #6/32-2 appeared questionable. The Planning Assistant replied that these had a stipulation on the permit for a compliance inspection by the Board and RJ Moreau Communities, LLC was looking for CO’s on Lot #’s 2 & 21. The Chairman stated he preferred a site walk for these driveways so as to set a precedent that no proposed driveways cause grade complications. Bob Furey asked if guardrails needed to be up also. The Planning Assistant replied they did. Don Duhaime added that he had viewed the driveways and found Lot #’s 2, 8 and 21 to be questionable. The Chairman reiterated that a site walk was his preference. A site walk was then scheduled for November 6, 2004, at 9:00 a.m.
5. Driveway Permit Application for Roger Dignard, South Hill Road, Map/Lot #13/50, for a
proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.
James Nordstrom and Bob Furey stated they had viewed the driveway and saw no issues.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #04-094, for
proposed driveway, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway shall
have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a
minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the twenty foot (20’) centerline of the
road; the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of radii minimum;
and, the driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. This driveway will also require two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty-five (25 ft) from the centerline of the road. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
NEW BOSTON COMMUNITY CHURCH
Compliance Hearing/Major Site Plan/Church Expansion
Location: Meetinghouse Hill Road & Mill Street
Tax Map/Lot #19/23, 24, & 25
CHURCH, cont.
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Vice Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Reverend “Woody” Woodland and Roger Dignard. An interested party was Randy Parker. The Chairman stated his only question was whether the parking lines had been placed on the site in accordance with the plan specifications. Woody Woodland replied they had been set that afternoon.
Randy Parker stated he had spoken with Woody Woodland and asked if “No Parking” signs could be added to the site plan. He noted that when the landscaping on the site was completed it ended approximately three feet from the pavement, which he felt encouraged parking in those areas. Randy Parker added that an accident had also occurred in that location as a result of parking in non-designated zones and that a tenant of Nan’s House also parked in the road. The Chairman replied that as he recalled, “No Parking” signs were not part of the applicant’s site plan and considered the issue more of a neighborly concern. Randy Parker stated that the parking issue affected access onto Mill Road. The Chairman explained that the Board had
verified the applicant’s compliance with their site plan and because the area in question was a public street parking specifications were not a part of that plan. Randy Parker disagreed with the Chairman and stated that the landscaping of the site was part of the plan along with the fact that it did not extend to the pavement. Gordon Carlstrom explained that the landscaping could not extend to the pavement because that three-foot width was in the Town’s right-of-way. Randy Parker stated he would address his concerns to another party. Woody Woodland asked if “No Parking” signs could be placed in the areas of concern. Gordon Carlstrom replied that an advisory sign might be allowed but a standard “No Parking” sign would require the Chief of Police’s approval.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm that the New Boston Community Church has
complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to expand the
existing New Boston Community Church by adding a 4,175 s.f. addition that would link
the existing church building with Nan’s House, Meetinghouse Hill Road and Mill Street,
Tax Map/Lot #19/23, 24, & 25 and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department. Bob Furey seconded
the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
CURTIS HILL, LLC Adjourned from 9/28/04
Work Session/Design Review
Major Subdivision/7 Lots
Location: Old Coach Road
Tax Map/Lot #10/3
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Art Siciliano, LLS, and Sam Proctor and Mike Sullivan of Curtis Hill, LLC. Abutters present were Karen
Kersting and Kevin St. John. Interested parties were Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, Wayne
Blassberg and Dan Teague of the Board of Fire Wards.
Art Siciliano, LLS, stated the applicant proposed to sprinkler the seven lots for the proposed subdivision. The Chairman replied that the Board had sought extensive legal counsel regarding this matter and it was Town Counsel’s opinion that the Board should accept the applicant’s proposal with no further requirements for fire water supply imposed. Dan MacDonald requested that the Board consider reserving such judgment until a joint meeting with the Board of Fire Wards could be conducted. He explained that there were 32 known cases within the Town where a subdivision was required to install a cistern(s) after the fifth lot was constructed and felt those developers would seek restitution from the Town if the applicant’s proposal was accepted by the Board. Dan MacDonald added such a precedent would also affect the fire protection of future subdivisions. He stated the Fire Department had demonstrated the need for fire water supply to the existing houses of the applicant’s
subdivision and the Board should work together with the Board of Fire Wards to reach a decision. The Chairman asked Dan MacDonald when he would like to meet with the Planning Board. Dan MacDonald replied that he would meet when the Planning Board wished and stressed that this decision would not only affect the applicant’s subdivision, but all subdivisions done to date and in the future. The Chairman stated that Town Counsel had taken those factors into account before he rendered his opinion. Gordon Carlstrom read an excerpt from Town Counsel’s letter:
“ The record before the Board should be focusing on these facts: Indeed the property is located in an area where fire safety is not a concern due to the nearby proximity of a fire station, water source and the like that would be difficult to impose a requirement for either a cistern or sprinkling on the proposed subdivision even if the Ordinance required it. If on the other hand the evidence is such that it demonstrates such a problem then the Board is in a position to deny the request to subdivide until the problem is addressed irrespective of the language in the note or the effectiveness of the
unsigned agreement.”
Gordon Carlstrom felt Town Counsel’s language suggested there could be scenarios where the Board of Fire Wards would be justified in proposing the installation of a cistern if the number of homes in a subdivision reached a certain count. The Chairman disagreed and felt Town Counsel’s language inferred that the next seven lots constructed on the applicant’s subdivision presented no additional risks because they would be installed with fire suppression systems. He added the issue could become more rampant if the applicant refused to install any type of fire suppression system on the seven proposed lots. Gordon Carlstrom disagreed and felt that while the Board did not have the authority to insist upon the installation of sprinklers for the existing homes in the subdivision they did have authority to
require that a cistern or sprinklers be added for the successive phase based on the Board of Fire Wards recommendation.
CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.
The Chairman asked if the Fire Department was able to conclude why the site was considered a vulnerable fire hazard area. Dan MacDonald replied that there was no year round reliable water supply in the area of the applicant’s proposed subdivision, it was a considerable distance from the Fire Department, and a large number of homes were involved. He added that these were the same criteria applied to other major subdivisions in order that citizens and tax
payers within the Town were aptly protected and the Fire Department was able to retain its volunteer status. The Chairman thought that Dan MacDonald’s theory was the reason sprinklers had become the norm for new construction. Dan Teague replied that sprinklers were an good source of fire suppression but did not protect separate structures such as garages and barns or surrounding wood lands and every home constructed increased the risk for the spread of unfriendly fire. He added that water supply was fundamental to fighting fire and that a Master Plan and Capital Improvement Budget existed for cistern protection, which was voted in by the Town. Dan Teague assumed a goal of both the Planning Board and Board of Fire Wards was to plan for the future of the Town while minimizing costs to tax payers. He
noted that developers were required to pave roads and in the past were required to install cisterns at every distance greater than 2,200 feet of truck travel distance from the Fire Department. Dan Teague stated that presently developers had the choice of cistern or sprinklers and it was not acceptable to allow one third of the applicant’s subdivision to go without any type of firewater protection. The Chairman explained that the legal opinion on this matter was considerably complicated. Dan Teague stated that the Board had the authority to require firewater protection for subdivisions. The Chairman replied that was not the absolute case. Dan MacDonald stated that over the past 20 years it had been the case. He added that Jay Marden, a resident of the Town, had petitioned the Board as an applicant with the same situation in 1997 or 1998 and was denied exception. The Chairman noted that time frame preceded the Sprinkler Ordinance. Dan
MacDonald replied that was not the issue and the cistern was ultimately required by Mr. Marden because without fire water protection to his homes there would have been impacts to the Fire Department and tax payers of the Town. He also thought it inappropriate that the Board proceed with a public meeting on this subject with legal advice based on the Fire Ward’s opinion, without discussing it with the Fire Wards first. James Nordstrom suggested a joint meeting be scheduled between the Board of Fire Wards and the Planning Board outside of a public meeting venue. The Chairman agreed and said a meeting should be scheduled as soon as possible as there was a problem with the wording of the Subdivision Regulation that need to be reviewed. Gordon Carlstrom felt the wording of the Subdivision Regulation was based on interpretation and that the Board did have legislative power to deny applications if applicants were not willing to comply with recommendations of
the Fire Wards to the Planning Board regarding suitable fire water protection for qualified subdivisions.
The Chairman wished to note that he had received Town Counsel’s letter of opinion at 7:00 p.m. this evening and was not inclined to hurry this application given the issue involved. Gordon Carlstrom thought Town Counsel should also speak with the Board of Fire Wards and the Planning Board to further expand on his opinion. The Chairman felt an initial joint meeting between the boards was warranted with a follow up meeting that included Bill Drescher, Esq.
CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.
Abutter, Kevin St. John stated that the outcome of this scenario would directly affect him and also his sister as their plot plans required additional firewater protection if they chose to subdivide their property. The Chairman replied that the opinions the Board had received thus far had been very encapsulating to equally address concerns of abutters, along with past and future scenarios. Kevin St. John added that he had lived in New Boston his entire life and predicted
that the decision reached on this topic through the efforts of the Planning Board, Fire Wards and Selectmen would not only impact future development but also those individuals like his own parents who could not afford cistern costs in order to subdivide their land in the past. He noted as an aside that he had uncovered in his own research that sprinklers saved lives and cisterns were not without maintenance problems. Kevin St. John concluded by stating that the appropriate boards needed to reach a uniform decision on this matter as consequential lawsuits could result.
Dan MacDonald asked if the Planning Board and Fire Wards should meet and then host Bill Drescher, Esq., at a successive meeting or if all should meet initially as Town Counsel would be the Town’s representative in the case of law suit(s) regarding the issue. The Chairman thought more would be accomplished if the boards met and compiled a list of questions for Town Counsel as there were four distinct but separate related issues to review. A meeting between the Planning Board and Board of Fire Wards was scheduled for October 28, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. at the Fire House.
Wayne Blassberg asked if the Fire Wards could have a copy of Town Counsel’s letter of opinion.
James Nordstrom MOVED to release a copy of Town Counsel’s letter dated October 26,
2004, to the Board of Fire Wards and the Selectmen. Bob Furey seconded the motion
and it PASSED unanimously.
Art Siciliano, LLS, requested notification of any resolutions to this issue prior to the applicant’s next scheduled hearing before the Board so that the progression of the application was not delayed. The Chairman stated the applicant’s only issue was fire water supply and that the Board intended to recommend sprinklers. He added that if a cistern was proposed in addition to sprinklers the requirements of both the Board of Fire Wards and Planning Board would be met and the application could then be considered complete. Dan MacDonald noted that a proposed cistern would need to be located on the Butterfield Mill Road portion of the property in order to satisfy the 2,200-foot truck travel distance. Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that the applicant offered to
sprinkle the seven proposed lots of the subdivision and would hold that offer unless mandated to do more. The Chairman did not think this issue would be resolved in the next two weeks due to Town Counsel’s full schedule and also could not guarantee that the applicant would not be required to install a cistern on the proposed subdivision. Art Siciliano, LLS, stated this was understood and reiterated that the applicant would like to be kept abreast of any developments before the next scheduled hearing. The Chairman replied this could be done.
CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.
Sam Proctor asked the Fire Wards and/or Town’s opinion regarding dry hydrants and the possible use of fire ponds as a means of fire water supply for the proposed subdivision. The
Chairman replied that fire ponds were not considered to be a reliable source of year round water supply, therefore, would not be considered acceptable.
Karen Kersting asked if a decision had been reached regarding the property on 540 Old Coach Road being considered part of the proposed subdivision parcel as a cistern for the proposed subdivision would not be able to jointly protect both locations. The Chairman stated
that question had not come up as being specifically relevant to the situation being considered. Karen Kersting stated she would be in attendance at the next meeting scheduled for the applicant.
James Nordstrom noted that the issue concerning possible abutters in Francestown, NH, should be addressed. The Chairman explained to the applicant that it appeared by the tax maps that there were abutters to the site located in Francestown, NH. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that such tax maps were incorrect and an additional piece of property owned by Art Nichols Real Estate Trust abutted the parcel and was within the New Boston town line perimeter. Kevin St. John was in agreement and noted he had walked the properties in that location.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Curtis Hill, LLC, Major Subdivision, 7 Lots, Location: Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #10/3, “R-A” District, to
November 23, 2004, at a time to be determined. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and
it PASSED unanimously.
C & G LEDGES Adjourned from 10/12/04
By George Merrill
Compliance Hearing/Phase III Bldg #5
Major Site Plan/Storage Buildings
Location: Whipplewill Road & NH Route 114
Tax Map/Lot #3/63-13
Commercial “Com” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were George Merrill and Carol McDougall. No abutters were present.
The Chairman stated the compliance site walk was held and there were no major issues. He noted the only question that arose was whether the applicant had yet requested an extension to his compliance deadline for the subsequent buildings (Phase III), which were not a part of this application. George Merrill replied he had not. The Chairman stated that the deadline for compliance on the subsequent storage buildings was October 1, 2005, and it was understood that the applicant did not intend to build those units within that time frame. He explained that there was no issue to further extend the date as it had been discussed previously with the applicant and although it did not directly involve the current compliance hearing, it should be noted to the Board. James
Nordstrom suggested the applicant request his extension as the deadline approached next year. The Chairman agreed and added the applicant might then have a clearer
C & G LEDGES, cont.
idea based on market conditions as to when the buildings would be completed. The applicant stated he had a fair picture at this point regarding the market and had not wanted to get too close to the deadline date before requesting an extension in case it was denied. The Chairman replied the deadline was not of that nature. George Merrill added he was considering an extension date request two years beyond the current one. The Chairman suggested the applicant request an extension in September, 2005, which would not be an issue with the Board as the plans were already approved.
It was noted that an outstanding fee for certified mailings in the amount of $56.00 was paid by George Merrill.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm that C & G Ledges, LLC, by George Merrill, has
complied with the first phase of the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan
to construct four 3,000 s.f. storage buildings in four phases in addition to the four previously approved 3,000 s.f. storage buildings at Whipplewill Road and NH Route 114, Tax Map/Lot #3/63-13, and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use
Permit on Building #5, to be issued by the Building Department. Bob Furey seconded
the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
GAGNON, MICHAEL
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Site Plan/Garage Expansion
Location: 524 North Mast Road
Tax Map/Lot #3/82
Commercial “Com” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Mike Dahlberg and Michael Gagnon. No abutters were present.
Mike Dahlberg stated for the record that Mr. Gee’s resides across the street from the previous hearing for C & G Ledges. Mr. Gee’s Tires. He added that the applicant proposed to add an additional work bay of approximately 1,022 s.f. next to the existing work bay on the left-hand side of the site so that employees would not have to work outside in inclement weather. Mike Dahlberg noted the number of employees was not increasing and the applicant’s intent was to improve the work area of his business. The Chairman asked if the site was zoned “Commercial” and Mike Dahlberg replied it was. Mike Dahlberg stated a quick survey had been performed and the property was surrounded by wetlands and a floodway easement along 300-foot
contours. He added that the plans showed the existing driveway line, parking areas, gravel and paved areas, buildings and the well, which was located in the center of the property. Mike Dahlberg described the applicant’s business as itinerant where clients drove their cars in for service and waited or left the vehicles at the business for a short time in designated parking areas. He also noted the existing residential house located on the property pre-existed current Zoning Regulations for commercial businesses
GAGNON, cont.
as did the commercial structure themselves. Mike Dahlberg stated the proposed expansion conformed to the Town’s setback requirements and the business encompassed a small portion of the site’s 7.36 total acreage, which was well below the maximum acreage allowed. He added that there were no special waivers or permits required, and no issues with the business’s location on Route 114.
The Chairman asked what previous expansion was performed on the right hand side of the site as viewed from the road. Mike Gagnon replied it was the large canopy structure located
to the right of the main building and labeled as an existing work bay on the plans. The Chairman thought the original intent of that structure tire storage. Mike Gagnon replied that the structure served both purposes and was mostly used for tire storage. The Chairman asked what the odd shape was on the back of the work bay and if the roof a shed type roof. Mike Gagnon replied that tire storage was in the back of the work bay and while the roof was sloped the structure was not enclosed or heated. The Chairman explained that this structure had concerned the Board because of its proximity to the wetlands. He added that if any future expansions were proposed in that area it could become an issue. The Chairman further added that according to the applicant’s previous plan no work would be done in
the structure, only tire storage. He explained that the plans needed to accurately represent the activities being performed so that the applicant could be found in compliance with his site plan.
Gordon Carlstrom stated that another concern had been the confirmation of proper access behind the building for emergency vehicles due to the large fire load on the site because of the tire storage. Michael Gagnon replied that it was possible to drive completely around the perimeter of the existing house and Mike Dahlberg agreed. Gordon Carlstrom reiterated the Chairman’s concern for proper clarification on the plans regarding the work bay description. Michael Gagnon explained that the work bays were not enclosed nor did they have any type of garage doors on the front and that only the main barn had garage doors. Mike Dahlberg stated he would accurately reflect this on the plan. The Chairman asked if it would be helpful to have emergency vehicle access
ways noted on the plan. Gordon Carlstrom replied it would be beneficial if such areas were noted on the plans so those areas could remain open in the event of an emergency. Mike Dahlberg stated he would make those notations to the plan. The Planning Assistant asked if the widths of the finished surfaces on the site should be noted on the plans (i.e. gravel area, paved areas, etc.). Mike Dahlberg replied that there were variable widths throughout the finished surfaces of the site. The Chairman stated that he was satisfied with the current scale of the plans and noted widths were not necessary. The Planning Assistant then asked the Board if parking spaces should be noted on the plan. Michael Gagnon noted that cars were usually not parked but pulled in for service and left and that they were rarely left overnight. He added that employee parking areas were noted on the plans to the left rear location of the site and that cars could be
moved if necessary while the perimeters around the barn and existing house were kept open. The Chairman stated he was not too concerned with the parking specifications due to the nature of the applicant’s business and that his opinion might change if the applicant proposed different types of services in the future such as tire alignments, etc. James Nordstrom stated it was a requirement of the Site Plan Regulation that the number of parking spaces and their
GAGNON, cont.
delineation be shown on the plan. He suggested that because the Board considered parking not applicable to this applicant the plans showed estimated parking ability in certain areas by dimension, which would still fulfill the requirement. The Planning Assistant asked if the size and height of existing buildings should be shown on the plans. James Nordstrom explained that such notation was an item required for application completeness. Mike Dahlberg stated he could list the depths and dimensions of the existing buildings on the detail sheet of the plans, which also included the silt fencing, and tax map sketches. The Planning Assistant questioned the small
beige colored boxes illustrated on the plan. Mike Dahlberg replied these were sheds and would be properly labeled.
James Nordstrom asked the status of the application. The Chairman also thought a site walk was warranted. James Nordstrom stated the biggest issue was whether the Board could accept the application as complete, which did not appear to be the case as the required floor plan was missing. Mike Dahlberg replied that he thought the builder had submitted the building plans to the Town. James Nordstrom surmised the floor plans could be in the Building Inspector’s office but were never forwarded to the Planning Department. Michael Gagnon believed Tim LeClaire had submitted the floor plans to the Town. Mike Dahlberg asked what information was needed from the floor plan. Gordon Carlstrom replied that the building and dimensions were required as was previously
discussed. The Chairman added that the entire floor plan was preferred because clarification and modifications were being made to the plan to reflect proper usages. Mike Dahlberg confirmed that he would show the square footage of the office space, waiting room, and storage spaces and note their titles on the plan also. The Chairman stated that with that information the plan could be considered complete. The Chairman stated that typically the application would at this point be denied for incompleteness or the applicant could choose to withdraw it and resubmit. James Nordstrom offered that this particular plan might be adjourned in fairness to the applicant and the fact that the Town may have a set of the applicant’s floor plans in the Building Inspector’s office. The Chairman stated if this were a major subdivision that was missing a critical piece of information the application would be denied, however, this plan was of a minor nature
in theory. He noted that it should not be considered the Board’s responsibility to provide an applicant’s floor plans, but he had no issue with James Nordstrom’s suggestion.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the acceptance of the submitted application of Michael Gagnon, Major Site Plan, Garage Expansion, Location: 524 North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/82, “Com” District, to November 9, 2004, at 9:15 p.m. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
A site walk was scheduled for November 6, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. +/-. The Chairman reiterated that the plans should accurately represent proposed usage, which did not need to be limited as the site was within a Commercial District.
DONOVAN, DANIEL
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Bedford Road
Tax Map/Lot #9/63
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Mike
Dahlberg and Daniel Donovan, Jr. An abutter present was Paul Aubin.
Daniel Donovan, Jr., stated that since the last meeting with the Board Mike Dahlberg had updated the site plans to reflect the wet area located on the front lot and had included information as to how the wetland crossing for the site would be improved. Mike Dahlberg stated he had walked the site several times and the wetland scientist had apparently missed a patch of wet area although it had not appeared wet at the time the topographic mapping was done. He added that the applicant’s administrative issues had been addressed and the one large item added to the plans was the improvement of the existing wetland crossing. Mike Dahlberg noted the applicant had submitted copies of a letter from DES that stated they did not have jurisdiction over the applicant’s
wetland crossing unless fill was added. He stated the plans now reflected that it was possible to construct a twelve foot wide paved or unpaved surface on the existing crossing and loam and seed with the addition of jute matting by hand, to the wetlands boundary. Mike Dahlberg added that the finished entrance of the crossing would be wide enough to support two-way traffic. The Chairman asked if the Town had a requirement for driveway widths. The Planning Assistant replied they did not. The Chairman asked if any abutters were present with comments. Paul Aubin replied he was an abutter and had no comments.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if the constructed crossing would be able to sustain 40,000 pounds. Mike Dahlberg stated that the sub-grade of the crossing was comprised of heavy fill and large boulders. The Chairman asked if there were any outstanding items on the plan. The Planning Assistant replied that the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan for the front lot had not been submitted to the Board. Mike Dahlberg stated the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan for the front lot should be Sheet #4 of the application dated February 25, 2004, and was prepared by Sublime Civil Consultants. The Planning Assistant stated she only had the pre-revised copy and would need the revised one. She added that she would also need the drainage plan for a culvert on the site plan.
Mike Dahlberg was unsure of the term “drainage plan” but offered to illustrate the inverts on the plan. James Nordstrom explained that at the time of the site walk it was questioned where the small wet pocket on the front lot would be in relation to the proposed house and driveway for that lot. He added that it was assumed the wet pocket would be located to the west of the house and driveway and questioned its drainage direction. Mike Dahlberg replied that the wet pocket in question drained directly where it was located with no channelized flow and that it was a negligible area to included on the topography. James Nordstrom asked if the proposed driveway for the lot were to wrap around the wet pocket if the drainage flow near it. Mike Dahlberg replied it would not. James Nordstrom suggested delineating the possible drainage flow areas for the wet pocket on the plans to clarify the question adding that the proper positioning of
the proposed driveway would most likely alleviate any possible drainage issues.
DONOVAN, cont.
The Planning Assistant asked about the culvert to the left of the wet pocket. Mike Dahlberg replied that culvert would be built on fill to catch storm water runoff and would be constructed above the grade of the leech field by approximately seven feet. James Nordstrom clarified that water flows to the north of the lot became unconcentrated. Mike Dahlberg concurred. James Nordstrom stated the Board would need copies of the revised Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. Bob Furey asked if the test pit logs were submitted. Mike Dahlberg replied they were
submitted on a separate sheet of the plan. Daniel Donovan, Jr., stated he had submitted copies to the Planning Assistant. The Planning Assistant stated this was the case, and asked if the test pit logs should be on the plan itself. James Nordstrom thought a copy of the test pit logs attached to the plan was acceptable. Mike Dahlberg noted the Septic Plan had been approved by the State and copies of that approval would be supplied to the Board. Bob Furey stated that the outlets to culverts on the plan seemed to be located within the Town’s right-of-way and if this was the case an easement might be required for Town maintenance access. The Chairman noted that there were no slope issues in that area that would inhibit access. Mike Dahlberg agreed and added that the outlets ended at the
right-of-way, five or six feet from the property to the lot line. The Planning Assistant stated that Peter Schauer’s seal was required on the plans. Mike Dahlberg replied he would obtain this and explained he had difficulty meeting with Mr. Schauer since his office moved to Loudon, NH.
The Chairman stated that in order to act on the applicant’s waivers the application first needed to be considered complete. He added that three copies of the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan needed to be submitted to the Board in order for this consideration.
Mike Dahlberg thought that the copies had been submitted under separate cover by Sublime Civil Consultants but added he could provide the necessary copies by 10:00 p.m. this evening with the Board’s permission. The Chairman asked the Board’s thoughts on the waivers. James Nordstrom thought the waivers had been granted in December, 2003, but was unsure of the rationale that was used. The Chairman replied that could have been the case, however, the application had also been denied in 2003. James Nordstrom recalled that on-ground delineation had been performed on all wetlands and development areas for the site. He added the SCS Soils mapping appeared to correspond with wetland mapping and on-ground topographic mapping. Mike Dahlberg noted the applicant had submitted 19 test pits, which should
be in the file under separate cover.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the waiver request to not require three paper print copies of the Soils Maps. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom then addressed the waivers for Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. He stated that he would support a waiver for the Environmental Impact Study because the applicant had supplied a plan that delineated sensitive areas on the site along with an Erosion Control Plan. The Planning Assistant added that the minutes from a prior meeting with
DONOVAN, cont.
the applicant stated: “The Site Impact Analysis was meant to fulfill the Environmental Impact Analysis and Fiscal and Traffic Impact Studies would most likely be waived…”. James Nordstrom then asked if an Environmental Impact Study waiver was even required. The Chairman thought the requirement for an Environmental Impact Study should be officially waived in so it was not assumed the Board believed the Site Impact Analysis met the specific requirements of the former even though all pertinent information was provided. He also felt the applicant’s two lot subdivision would not have dramatic impacts that would require a Traffic and
Fiscal Impact Study. James Nordstrom agreed and added the Board had waived the same
requirement in the past for subdivisions slightly larger than the applicant’s.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the waiver requests for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the applicant’s hearing would be tabled until 10:00 p.m. tonight and be considered the last hearing of the evening at which time Mike Dahlberg could supply the three required copies of the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to the Board which would make the application complete.
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS
By Rick Martin
Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing/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 was Bob Todd, LLS, and Rick Martin, President of Right Way Builders. Abutters and interested parties present were Jay Marden, Kim Burkhamer, Betsy Lake, Tom Clapp, Janet Chamberlain, Brent Armstrong, Elsie and Pat Golding, and Rock Larochelle, Road Committee.
Bob Todd, LLS, submitted his presentation outline to the Board along with plan profiles of the proposed road done by Sanford Survey. His outline is as follows:
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
FOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION OF RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC.
MAP 5, LOTS 50, 51, 52, & 52-1
October 26, 2004 Planning Board Meeting
Design Review Hearing
(revised 10/27/04)
RIGHTWAY BUILDERS, cont.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Robert Todd presenting on behalf of 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 adjustment, and lot 52 for lot line adjustment.
2.0 Community Context
2.1 (See map compiled from tax map sheets 5 and 8
2.2 Located on south side of Beard Road, entrance to project is 1.3 miles from the NBFD.
2.3 Entrance to project is 900 feet from Route 77.
2.4 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.
3.0 Project Objective
3.1 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 25 new residential lots and a re-
configuration of existing lot 52-1;
3.12 residential buildings with condex
ownership;
3.13 one lot proposed for a “community”
building to be used for social and business
activities;
3.14 protected open space comprising about 40.8
acres with a management plan for long
term forest growth and for trails to
connect the project with the railroad
trail.
4.0 Land characteristics
4.1 Topography:
4.11 mapped from data gathered on the ground and by
aerial survey methods showing 5’ interval contour
lines;
4.12 slope analysis shows = 25% areas comprising
about 38 acres and = 15% and = 25% comprising
about 25 acres;
RIGHTWAY BUILDERS, cont.
4.13 leaving about 63 acres with slope less than 15%;
4.14 shown on the topographic plan set sheets 2-4.
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, 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 has Pillsbury soil (group 5)
poorly drained, and/or jurisdictional wetland as
defined by NHDES Wetlands Bureau admin. Rule
301.01.
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 shown on sheets 2 through 6 of the Edaphic Plan
Set.
5.0 Proposal (see sheets 2 through 4 of Cadastral Plan Set):
5.1 plan represents 25 new residential lots (and a re-
configuration of existing lot 52-1) supporting the
disposal of 600 gallons per day of effluent from
condex units with two bedrooms each, served by one
effluent disposal area and one well;
5.11 five of the lots will be back lots and the
remainder will be conventional 2 acre lots;
5.12 all lots have been sized in accordance with
state regulations and our zoning ordinance with
respect to wetland exclusions;
5.13 the applicant wishes to have lot 50 approved for
RIGHTWAY BUILDERS, cont.
use as a community building for social and
meeting use served by an on-site well and septic
system, it shall not be used as a residence;
5.14 each condex unit and the community building
will be constructed with sprinkler systems;
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 include snow clearing
from driveways and walks;
5.22 additional services on landscaping and turf,
5.23 transportation services to residents,
5.24 shopping and errand services;
5.3 residents must be 55 years of age or older with no
children allowed to reside in the units;
5.4 a meeting with the Conservation Commission has been
requested to discuss how best to provide for the
use and protection of up to 40.8 acres of land shown
on the plan as open space;
5.41 applicant wishes to construct walking trails
through the open space connecting all parts of
the project with Beard Road and with the
Railroad trail system;
5.42 the applicant proposes a management plan for the
open space addressing location of trails and
features and how the long term forest growth
will be maintained;
5.43 the applicant has expressed interest in having
some strategic areas in the open space enhanced
by the construction of gazebo type structures
erected to facilitate observing the view and
meditation;
5.44 the applicant acknowledges that the general
public may utilize the trail system and that
parking to accommodate those users should be
provided within the project;
5.5 the applicant will consider placing building
envelopes and land clearing limits on the backlots
and on other lots where possible to maintain
forest cover in perpetuity;
RIGHTWAY BUILDERS, cont.
5.6 with the exception of one possible walking trail
crossing, there are no wetland crossings needed to
implement this proposal;
5.7 the applicant has an agreement with Mr. and Mrs.
to acquire 1.5 acres of lot 51 so as to avoid wetlands in roadway siting;
5.8 the applicant intends to build, maintain, and operate this project;
5.9 the applicant has no plan for phasing (on hearing testimony at the hearing regarding the potential need to prepare for providing emergency services to the
community of 55 year old + residents, the applicant
agreed to consider phasing);
6.0 Road System/Driveways (see Plan & Profile plans for the road System) by Sandford Engineering and Surveying, sheets
1-5):
6.1 the project will involve 3800 feet of new road
(Road A) construction running from Beard Road to a
cul-de-sac (all road distances accumulated around
cul-de-sacs);
6.11 a traffic study has been commissioned and an
initial recommendation is that the Beard Road
entrance be relocated to enhance site distance
to the west, this is being studied presently;
6.2 additionally, the plan calls for Road B to be 1178
feet in length from Road A to a cul-de-sac,
6.3 Road A and Road B will serve all lots in the
Subdivision except for lot 50-2;
6.4 the last component of the road system is an
emergency access way 1578 feet long running
southerly from Beard Road to the northerly portion
of Road A near the cul-de-sac (the road plan represents the way as gated at Beard Road, this is
not the applicant’s intent);
6.41 the applicant proposes to construct the
emergency access way with, a gravel surface
running from Beard Road to the crest of
the slope (this is to reduce runoff on to Beard road), a paved surface on the remainder, a 12 feet wide way with a maximum slope of
10% for a distance of 700 feet.
6.42 the emergency way is intended to serve as
RIGHTWAY BUILDERS, cont.
the driveway for proposed lot 50-3 to
access Road A at station 34+00;
6.43 the emergency access way is also intended
to serve as the driveway for proposed
lot 50-2 providing direct access to Beard Road
upon which said lot takes its frontage;
6.44 the applicant intends to surface the emergency
access road with “hard pack” processed gravel;
6.5 the maximum grade of Road A is 8% for a
distance of 625 feet. Road B has a maximum grade
of 6% for a distance of only 30 feet, the average
grade is 2%.
6.6 the driveway cuts are shown on the plan and profile
sheets by Sandford; those shown are for access to the condex units, so will be utilized by the two unit
owners;
6.61 lots 50-10 and 50-11 are to be served by a
common driveway running from the curb cut
off the south-easterly side of the cul-de-
sac on Road B over the “flagpole” portion
of lot 50-10, therefore 4 residential unit
owners will be using this driveway;
6.62 lot 50-11 has a “flagpole” strip that is
suitable for placement of a driveway, but
the applicant wants to use the strip as a
pedestrian way to access the open space;
6.7 utilities serving the development will be underground
within the limits of the right of way;
Bob Todd, LLS, stated the applicant understood there was much work to be done in the design review phase of the application and hoped productive work sessions would ensue.
Kim Burkhamer asked if the proposed four bedroom condexes would net four bedrooms per structure or four bedrooms per unit. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that each proposed condex unit would have two bedrooms, which would net four bedrooms per condex. James Nordstrom asked for a definition of “condex”. Bob Todd, LS, explained that a condex was considered to be a form of a condominium where, in this case, an individual(s) would purchase half of the structure or one unit and share common open space with the owner of the adjoining unit. He added that details regarding whether owners would have an undivided interest in the open space had not yet
RIGHTWAY BUILDERS, cont.
been decided. James Nordstrom clarified that the definition was not the pure form of a detached condominium. Bob Todd, LLS, agreed.
Pat Golding asked how 900 feet of Beard Road would be impacted as detailed in Mr. Todd, LLS’s outline. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that although a Traffic Study had not yet been done, an engineer for this project determined that 90% of the traffic leaving the site would turn left and travel 900 feet down Beard Road to Route 77. Pat Golding disagreed with this finding and thought traffic would prefer to turn right down the length of Beard Road. The Chairman noted that the Traffic Study would answer that question more completely. Rick Martin stated he was prepared to upgrade the 900 feet of Beard Road that was predicted to be impacted by the condex site’s resident travel. Betsy Lake expressed concern over the possible paving of Beard Road, and her
preferred that it remain a dirt road. The Chairman explained that the applicant had only offered to pave from the site entrance to Route 77 in order to encourage residents of the subdivision to turn left rather than to the right and down the length of Beard Road. He added that because the proposed subdivision was for individuals aged 55 and older it would not generate the same amount of traffic as a standard residential subdivision.
Tom Clapp inquired about the gate that had been proposed at the old logging road location on the site plan. Bob Todd, LLS, noted where the gate had originally been proposed but clarified that a miscommunication had occurred between his office and Sanford Survey and that the location would not be gated but would be used for emergency access. Tom Clap asked what type of control would be had over that access. The Chairman asked if the access would be paved. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it would most likely not be paved. The Chairman clarified that the access would be narrower than a regular road and pavement would not extend into it. Bob Todd, LLS, stated this was the case. Rick Martin stated the access could be paved if the individual owners of the
condex preferred. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that because individual owners would have undivided interest in the lot, this could be the case, however, a restriction could be put in the deed to prohibit paving in order to limit run-off onto Beard Road
Kim Burkhamer asked if the utilities for the proposed subdivision would be under or above ground. Rick Martin replied they would be under ground.
Jay Marden commented that 25 lots with two family homes would be approximately 50 residents. The Chairman corrected the number to be 23 lots or 46 residents. Jay Marden then asked who would build the proposed road out to Beard Road if the applicant was only building from the access road to the circle. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the entire road was proposed to be built by the applicant. Jay Marden asked if the homes would be stick built or modular. Bob Todd, LLS, replied they would be stick built. He asked how realistic the open space land would be for recreation, game or walking trails. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that game or wildlife usually did not use man made trails. Jay Marden thought the slopes in that area could make it difficult for people
or animals to maneuver. Bob Todd, LLS, thought the open space could definitely be used for hiking and added that he had hiked steeper recreational areas than the open space
RIGHTWAY BUILDERS, cont.
proposed by the applicant. Rick Martin concurred that there were many areas within the open space proposed that were suitable for hiking.
Pat Golding asked if the subdivision would be constructed in phases as one or two duplexes per year for a given project was standard. Rick Martin replied that he saw no reason to phase this subdivision as it would present no major impacts to schools or Town facilities. He added that the sooner the project was completed the sooner the impact of trucks on Beard Road would cease. Rick Martin noted that more units built sooner would net greater tax revenue for the Town. Janet Chamberlain thought the applicant should consider phasing in consideration of the minimal emergency service personnel of the Fire Department. Rick Martin replied he would take that request under advisement. The Chairman noted that Rick Martin would most likely receive the same comments
directly from the Board Fire Wards.
Brent Armstrong, 4H Foundation Board of Directors, asked if language had been submitted to the Board regarding the enforcement of the 55 and older stipulation for the proposed subdivision. Rick Martin replied that it had not and Craig Michaels, Esq., had been contacted to draft this language for submittal to the Board. The Chairman asked if Brent Armstrong wished to receive a copy of the language for review. Brent Armstrong replied that he
did not but inquired as it should be a point of process of the Board. Rick Martin thought the
language should be prepared in time for the next meeting with the Board.
Pat Golding asked if the subdivision would be visible from Route 13 as there were no homes currently visible from that vantage point. Rick Martin replied that the proposed subdivision could be set down within a hilled area so as to be as inconspicuous as possible. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he had not analyzed the view shed from the Route 13 vantage point, however, thought a minimal view of the subdivision was possible.
Jay Marden asked what type of fire protection system was proposed. Rick Martin stated that each unit would be installed with sprinklers. The Chairman stated that a cistern had been the original proposal but noted that he had mentioned his preference for sprinklers at a previous meeting to the applicant. Rick Martin agreed and added that he also felt a sprinkler system was more appropriate for this type of subdivision. The Chairman asked where the nearest fire cistern was located. Gordon Carlstrom stated a cistern was located on Weare Road past the Dodge farm. Jay Marden noted a cistern was located on Route 77 before Lull Road. James Nordstrom asked the dead end length of the proposed roadways within the subdivision. Bob Todd, LLS, replied they
were 1,178 feet and 3,800 feet as presented in his outline. Gordon asked who would be responsible for plowing the proposed roadways. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that private roads were the initial consideration, however, Mr. Martin was now favoring a Town road classification in light of the requirements for a private way built to Class V standards. The Chairman asked why the proposed roadway did not horseshoe back onto Beard Road. Rick Martin replied they were trying to lessen impacts to Beard Road. Bob Todd, LLS, added that there were significant slopes on the site that would not meet Town grade standards if the road were designed through those areas. Kim Burkhamer noted the site distance would not be adequate if the road horseshoed back onto Beard. Rick Martin agreed and explained this was why he purchased additional property to afford better sight distance from the entrance point.
RIGHTWAY BUILDERS, cont.
Jay Marden noted that the applicant had initially alluded to a long term management relationship with the proposed subdivision. He asked if this meant Rick Martin would have the driveways of the units plowed indefinitely even though the Town might maintain the proposed road. Rick Martin replied this was the case and added that he was still waiting for Town input regarding the proposed roadway and maintenance but that it would be brought up to Town standards in either case.
Elsie Golding asked the location of the 1.5 acre piece the Townes agreed to adjust for the applicant. Bob Todd, LLS, noted the location of the 1.5 acre piece on the plan and explained that when the roadway was designed there was a potential wetland impact of 4,000 feet based on where it would travel along with an unsuitable area to place fill. He added that the Townes who own Lot #50/51, had allowed the applicant to acquire the 1.5 acre piece of their parcel so that the road could go through it and not impact the wetlands. Elsie Golding then asked when the Environmental Impact Study would be performed as one of her main reasons for moving to the Town was the wildlife and she was concerned about the potential impacts they would face. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he
shared her concern and had lived in New Boston his entire life. He added that he did not know when the Environmental Impact Study would be held as the applicant was still in the design review process but assumed it might occur over the next two months. The
Chairman noted that such studies took place once a design was in a more finalized format. He added that the applicant was not expecting a rapid approval of this application. Kim Burkhamer asked what type of studies the Board would require. The Chairman replied that Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies would be required. Rick Martin commented that both the Traffic and Fiscal Studies were currently in process. Kim Burkhamer asked if the Environmental Impact study would address wildlife. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it would. Gordon Carlstrom stated that such studies were required unless waived by the Board. The Chairman noted that waivers to these studies would be unlikely for this application. Pat Golding asked why the applicant chose to place 23 units in such a sparsely
populated area with sloping landscapes. The Chairman stated the only answer was a profit driven one. Rick Martin noted that the total parcel was 130 acres and 23 units would not in any way cover that entire area. Pat Golding felt that a subdivision of that type in an area of dirt roads and farms was unthinkable. He asked if the Board would consider qualified statements from a Real Estate broker that stated their homes would be devalued if the subdivision was built. The Chairman stated it would be considered by the Board. Jay Marden asked if the proposed subdivision was a cluster or standard type. Bob Todd, LLS, replied it was not a cluster. Jay Marden stated he was concerned that the applicant had not provided a reasonable wild life corridor for his prior subdivision nor this subdivision proposal other than along the steep side of the river. The Chairman asked Rick Martin, in the interest of time, to consider a response to Mr.
Marden’s comment for the next meeting.
Rock Larochelle requested that a copy of the plans and Traffic Study be made available to the Road Committee as soon as they were available.
Kim Burkhamer asked if the open space proposed on the site plan would be made available to the public or only to residents of the subdivision as parking for the public would be a concern. Bob Todd, LLS, agreed and thought parking for the public would need to be in the
RIGHTWAY BUILDERS, cont.
clubhouse area of the site plan. The Chairman agreed and added the access road should not be used for public parking.
Betsy Lake asked what impacts blasting would have on nearby residents of the proposed subdivision. The Chairman replied that blasting rarely affected anyone.
Travis Daniels MOVED to adjourn the application of Right Way Builders, Inc., Major Subdivision, 23 Lots, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/52 & 5/50, “R-A” District, to November 23, 2004, at 7:30 p.m. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
DONOVAN, DANIEL
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Bedford Road
Tax Map/Lot #9/63
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Mike Dahlberg submitted three additional copies of the Erosion Control Plan to the Board. The Chairman stated that the Board now had four copies of the Erosion Control Plan and the application could be considered complete.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Daniel Donovan, Jr., Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Bedford Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/63, “R-A” District, as complete. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Planning Assistant stated that the applicant had also requested a waiver on the Watershed Outline and Drainage Computations. The Chairman replied that these items were not an issue with the plan.
Travis Daniels MOVED to accept the waiver requests for the Watershed Outline and Drainage Computations. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom asked what remaining check list items needed to be addressed on the application. The Planning Assistant replied that Peter Schauer’s seal was required on the plan, and monumentation or certificate of bounds needed to be provided. Mike Dahlberg stated he could provide a certificate of bounds on the final plan.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the application for the Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, for Daniel Donovan, Jr., Bedford Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/63, subject to:
DONOVAN, cont.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,
including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
4. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application, including the cost of recording documents at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be December 26, 2004, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date, the
applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under
RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. Driveway Permit Application for Marie & Steve Danielson, 3 Carriage Road, Map/Lot
#12/93-32, for approval of circular driveway, for the Board’s action.
(Board to drive by prior to meeting)
Gordon Carlstrom stated that the distance measurement between curb cuts did not meet the minimum 100 foot separation discussed with the Road Agent at a previous meeting. The Chairman clarified that the distance between curb cuts for this applicants’ driveway was 69 feet center to center. He then asked if the driveway had been paved. The Planning Assistant replied it had not. Gordon Carlstrom stated the Road Agent had expressed concern regarding snow plowing between insufficient curb cut distances as the snow became compacted at the corners. The Chairman stated that the applicant’s driveway did not meet specifications according to the Road Agent’s standards and, therefore, the Board could view the driveway or deny the application
tonight. Gordon Carlstrom thought that because the Town did not yet have any official curb cut specifications, the Board should view the driveway. James Nordstrom stated he had viewed the driveway and although it looked very nice he felt the circular design did not serve any particular purpose and the same could be accomplished with a single entrance driveway. James Nordstrom asked if the Road Agent had acted on the applicant’s Driveway Permit. The Planning Assistant replied the Road Agent was unsure what course of action to take but had told the applicant it was ok to have the circular driveway. James Nordstrom thought the Road Agent should act on the Driveway Permit Application with follow up by the Planning Board.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if there were existing provisions by the Town that prevented the installation of lights at the end of driveways as he felt it was becoming an issue. James Nordstrom did not believe any such provisions were in place. Gordon Carlstrom stated such lights could be considered in the Town’s right-of-way and such provisions should be considered for the Driveway Regulations. The Chairman agreed that there should be a regulation to prohibit
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
lights at the end of driveways. James Nordstrom noted that in the Site Plan regulations, there was reference made to illumination that infringed on abutting properties. From the audience, Earney Mayo of Indian Falls, LLC, commented that no such lighting would be allowed for that subdivision. Interested party, Cindy Wilson wondered if was language could be included in the Master Plan to address this issue.
The Planning Assistant stated she would check with the Road Agent regarding the applicant’s curb cut distance for his circular driveway. Gordon Carlstrom thought the issue should be tabled until review by the Road Agent as building a driveway incorrectly should not set a precedent for an approval.
7. Driveway Permit Application for Indian Falls, LLC, Indian Falls Road, Map/Lot #12/89-
4, #12/89-5, #12/89-6, #12/89-7, #12/89-8, #12/89-9, #12/89-10, #12/89-11, #12/89-12,
and #12/89-13, for proposed driveways, for the Board’s action.
(Board to drive by prior to meeting-no copies distributed at the 10/12/04 meeting).
The Planning Assistant stated that the roadway was now up to sub-grade condition and that Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc. had rendered approval. Earney Mayo submitted the Town Engineer’s letter of approval to the Board. James Nordstrom added that Amy Alexander had also informed him by telephone of the roadway’s sub-grade approval.
Earney Mayo asked if the Town specified that culverts be 30 inches. The Chairman replied the Town was heading in that direction but the applicant should abide by whatever was approved for the site plan. James Nordstrom stated the applicant’s site plan had no specifications but that other recent plans he had seen did have 30 inch culverts. Gordon Carlstrom suggested the same for this applicant and Earney Mayo said he would have 30 inch culverts installed.
The Chairman asked which of the proposed driveways had potential for a positive entrance grade off the roadway. Earney Mayo replied that none of the finished grades would be in that condition but currently they were Lot #’s 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12. The Chairman explained that it was the Board’s practice to note original grades prior to construction followed by a recheck, if
necessary, post construction.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Applications 04-084 to 04-093, for proposed driveways, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the
driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road; the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. As part of the driveway application, it is stipulated that the driveways of Map/Lot #’s 12/89-4, 12/89-5, 12/89-6, 12/89-7, and 12/89-12 after construction will be
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
inspected by the Board or its designee for compliance. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
16. A copy of a fax received October 25, 2004, from Cynthia Wilson, to the Board, Re: Peter
Beers subdivision on Mason Drive and Laurel Lane, was distributed for the Board’s
review and discussion. (Cindy Wilson to be present.)
Cindy Wilson stated that the applicant’s subdivision had been approved without her receipt of abutter notification and that she had some questions regarding the subdivision and the application’s sequence of events as it related to Mason Drive and its private road status. She asked if the absence of a note on the plan to restricted future subdivision meant it was allowed. The Chairman explained that it could be assuming the parcels met the criteria for future subdivision. Cindy Wilson then asked how the subdivision could have been approved without a
written right-of-way to the new parcel. The Chairman replied that was an error by the Board. Gordon Carlstrom noted it was presented to the Board that Cindy Wilson would grant such a right-of-way and if that was not the case then an issue existed. Cindy Wilson replied she would be granting a right-of-way for the property in question and added that if she had not spoken by chance with the applicant regarding the application approval a precedent would have been set in her favor with the absence of that right-of-way grant. Gordon Carlstrom clarified that the ZBA had allowed the subdivision of the parcel but the granting of access to the applicant’s property was by Cindy Wilson’s authority and the Town was preparing documents for Ms. Wilson’s signing that stated they would not have an interest in the
road as it was considered a private drive. Cindy Wilson asked if those documents should be notarized. Gordon Carlstrom recommended Ms. Wilson use an attorney for this process noting the Town would not be involved as they would have no rights to Mason Drive. Cindy Wilson asked if the right-of-way would be drawn up to Peter Beers as he owned the parcel in question. Gordon Carlstrom replied an attorney could better answer that question. Cindy Wilson stated she would grant the right-of-way for the one residence only. She added that on the plot plan, Mason Drive had no tax map or lot number which she confirmed to be Tax Map/Lot #15/49. Cindy Wilson then asked if the parcel required a Driveway Permit. The Planning Assistant replied that a Driveway Permit had been signed but the Town could not regulate it. James Nordstrom agreed and thought the permit had no force by the Town as Mason Drive was considered private property. He noted
that the newly subdivided lot had one logical place for access which was that granted on the Driveway Permit. Cindy Wilson stated she would like to see a note on the plans that stated no further subdivision would occur. The Chairman stated the parcel could most likely be further subdivided but could not utilize Cindy Wilson’s access. James Nordstrom added that the newly subdivided lot did not have future subdivision potential, however, the parent lot did and also had considerable road frontage on a Town road. Gordon Carlstrom added that the parent lot could be subdivided after a lot line adjustment was done to bring that parcel into compliance and could conceivably take a chuck of that subdivided land to use but Cindy Wilson could deny access of off Mason Drive unless she bought up to Class VI status, then it would fall under town standards.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
Cindy Wilson asked what the next course of action would be with this application. The Planning Assistant replied that the plans had been approved, however, the mylar was not yet recorded and she had contacted Ray Shea with the changes that needed to be made. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the easement needed to be part of the deed. James Nordstrom thought it should be. Cindy Wilson agreed. Gordon Carlstrom added that part of Cindy Wilson’s work with her counsel would address the deed but noted that deed would benefit and protect the land owners right of passage. The Planning Assistant asked if a note to reference the deed should be included on Peter Beers’ plan. James Nordstrom replied that a reference to Mason Drive and its road definition
could be added. James Nordstrom asked Cindy Wilson if she was noticed for the ZBA hearing for Peter Beers. The Planning Assistant replied that she was and was inadvertently omitted from the Planning Board Hearings for the same applicant, however, had agreed to sign an acknowledgement stating she did not receive noticed letters but had no objections to the applicant’s previous hearings. Cindy Wilson then submitted her signed acknowledgement to the Board.
8. Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Popple Road, Tax
Map/Lot #6/32-16, for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.
(Board to drive by prior to meeting)
James Nordstrom stated he had viewed the driveway and saw no issues.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #04-095, for
proposed driveway, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway shall
have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a
minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the twenty foot (20’) centerline of the
road; the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of radii minimum;
and, the driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. Bob Furey
seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
9. A copy of an E-mail received October 15, 2004, from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry,
Inc., to DES, State of New Hampshire, Re: Indian Falls Wetland Impact area, was
distributed for the Board’s information.
10. A copy of a letter received October 18, 2004, from Brian P. Holt, Vista Road, LLC, to the New Boston Zoning Board of Adjustment, Re: Request for Rehearing Tax Map/Lot
#6/40-5, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman clarified that the applicant’s rehearing request was denied by the ZBA. The Planning Assistant stated this was correct.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
11a. A copy of a letter received October 15, 2004, from Lynn MacInnis, to Town of New
Boston, Building Department, Re: Complaint of Quarry business, Summit Drive, was
distributed for the Board’s information.
11b. A copy of a letter dated October 20, 2004, from Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant, to Richard Herget and Carol Hayse, Re: 79 Summit Drive, Tax Map/Lot
#14/128, Earth Excavation and Rock Removal, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman read portions of the letter of complaint by Lynn MacInnis. The Planning Assistant stated that Earth Excavation and Rock Removal had obtained an approval to operate but was apparently not abiding by the rules of operation imposed. The Chairman asked if the letter had been forwarded to Dennis Sarette, Code Enforcement Officer, as this problem was a code enforcement issue. The Planning Assistant stated Dennis Sarette said this was not his issue and should be handled by the Planning Department. The Chairman stated the Selectman should now handle the issue as they were Dennis Sarette’s overseer. Gordon Carlstrom asked that the
letter be forwarded to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator or himself. James Nordstrom stated the Planning Board could only revoke site plan approval and was not authorized to handle code enforcement. The Chairman added that the Board had no proof of what was occurring at the quarry site because the Code Enforcement Officer refused to become involved. The Planning Assistant noted Dennis Sarette did view the quarry site one time at Dave Woodbury’s request and then instructed her to write the letter to Earth Excavation and Rock Removal. The Chairman stated this was not the Planning Departments issue and the letter should be forwarded to the proper Town agency.
12. Daily road inspection reports dated August 30th, September 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 10th, 18th, 20th,
and 24th, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Waldorf Estates, were distributed for the
Board’s information.
The Planning Assistant stated that because the Town Engineer’s inspection bills were being forwarded to and scrutinized by Morgan Hollis, Esq., Dufresne-Henry, Inc. had refrained from doing any additional inspections at Waldorf Estates until the issue was resolved. She added that approximately $3,000 was still unpaid and was not available in Waldorf Estate’s escrow. The Planning Assistant noted that Renee LeBranche of Dufresne-Henry, Inc. would be speaking directly with Morgan Hollis, Esq. to resolve the issue.
13. Daily Road Inspection reports dated August 30th, 31st, September 1st, 3rd, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th, from Dufresne-Henry, Re: Highland Hills, was distributed for the Board’s information.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
14. A copy of Senate Bill #176, Re: Registry of Deeds, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Planning Assistant stated Bob Todd, LLS, had planned to explain this as he had given this information to her. Gordon Carlstrom thought the item regarded contradictory margins. The Planning Assistant added it involved what items should be required versus not needed for site plans. James Nordstrom had heard of the Bill but thought decisions on it had not yet been finalized by New Hampshire registries.
15. Discussion: re: Daniel and Carol Towne, revision of current Driveway Permit, South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #10/78-1.
The Planning Assistant explained that the applicants wished to move their driveway 200 feet up South Hill and the original placement was not what he intended. She added that the new measure would be 440 feet from the corner lot line versus 240 feet. The Chairman asked if the Townes would discontinue the other driveway. The Planning Assistant stated they would. James Nordstrom noticed the change when he drove by and saw no issues with sight distance
from the new location. The Chairman thought a new Driveway Permit Application should be made so that the Board could re-approve it.
17. A copy of a fax received from Ray Shea, Sanford Survey and Engineering, to the Board, Re: TRG Learning Center (Rising Generation-Lynn Strong) requesting extension, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Planning Assistant stated that a 30 day extension was requested.
James Nordstrom MOVED to extend the deadline for TRG Learning Center (Rising Generation-Lynn Strong) by 30 days. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
18. Discussion, Re: proposed lot line adjustment between Aggregate Industries Land Company, Inc., and New Boston Conservation Commission.
The Planning Assistant asked if application fees that pertained to the Conservation Commission and if the plans should be reviewed in-house versus by the Town Engineer to save the $80.00 review fee. The Chairman replied that if the Planning Assistant felt she could take on the review then that was acceptable by the Board. He added that the application fees could also be waived.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
19. A copy of a letter dated October 24, 2004, from Bill Drescher, Esq., to the Board, Re: review of documents for June Edward’s subdivision of Tucker Mill Road and Dougherty Lane, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Planning Assistant stated minor corrections were needed and she would forward the letter to the applicant.
20. A copy of a letter dated October 20, 2004, to Brian Holt, Vista Road, LLC, from the ZBA, and minute from the ZBA meeting of October 19, 2004, Re: motion for rehearing, was distributed for the Board’s information.
21. A copy of a letter dated October 26, 2004, from Dennis Sarette, Building and Code Official, to Joseph A. Foistner, Re: complaint of wetland violation of New Boston Self Storage, LLC, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman read the letter aloud and was surprised that Joe Foistner had written accusatory comments about him and wished that to be clarified.
22. The minutes of October 12, 2004, were distributed for approval at the meeting of
November 9, 2004, with or without changes.
The Chairman endorsed the New Boston Community Church site plan.
At 11:12 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien, Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
| 
