Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 11/09/04
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON                                             
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of 2004 Meetings

November 9, 2004

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan.  Present were regular members James Nordstrom, 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 Brian Holt, Jeff Kevan, PE, Betsy Dodge, Bill Brendle, Norman Sarette, Jonathan and Jessica Willard, Ray Shea, Gerry Perron, Michael Gagnon, Mike Dahlberg, Timothy Burnham, Rich Waters, and Brandy Mitroff.

VISTA ROAD, LLC Adjourned from 9/14/04
        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, submitted copies of the site plan which he explained was the previously submitted version of the cluster subdivision and one conventional lot but with a minor adjustment to the proposed road’s layout based on the ZBA’s recent denial for an access off Wilson Hill Road.  He noted that this adjustment would lessen the depth on some lots but would not affect the positioning of the cul-de-sac.  Jeff Kevan, PE, added that the proposed road still complied with Town standards and the entrance platform grade off Wilson Hill Road would be the required -3%.  He noted that the slopes on the road would be kept under 8% around corners and minimal grading would be required on the up and down hillside portions which would afford the homes lower level walk-outs on the back sides.  Jeff Kevan, PE, stated the plans were currently being reviewed by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., and the only remaining item was the bond estimate, which Brian Holt would submit tonight.  Bob Furey asked if the position of the road or its cul-de-sac was changed.  Jeff Kevan, PE, explained that the cul-de-sac had not moved but the road was pulled down approximately 50 feet in a certain location, which was not a significant change.  He added that the open space proposed was still at 12.76 acres, which exceeded the requirement for 10 acres based on the Town’s Cluster Regulations.  Bob Furey asked how the curb cuts for the depth-affected lots would be addressed.  Jeff Kevan, PE, noted their proposed locations and stated those homes would most likely have a garage under an elevated first floor.  James Nordstrom commented that the layout of the up-slope lots now looked better than in the pre-modified plan.  Jeff Kevan, PE, added that the layout of the down-slope lots was unchanged from the previous design and that certain driveways would be challenged but most likely designed as “S” type driveways with entrance grades of 10% or less.  James Nordstrom confirmed that the plans had been forwarded to the Town Engineer and the Planning Assistant said this was correct.  She added that she was still awaiting the Town Engineer’s feedback as the plans had only been forwarded several days prior.  She asked if the Board members could review items listed on the cover sheet to confirm that all issues for the application were addressed.  The Planning Assistant then asked Brian Holt if the bond estimate included the Conditional Use

VISTA ROAD, LLC, cont.

Permit.  Brian Holt replied that the bond estimate was prepared in accordance with Town regulations.  The Chairman asked how many wetland crossings for the site required Conditional Use Permits.  Jeff Kevan, PE, replied there were none and that the original plans had required Dredge and Fill Permits but the revised design of the updated plans did not.  The Chairman asked if items were missing on the Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.  Jeff Kevan, PE, replied that drainage calculations had been submitted based on the cul-de-sac design which showed that the same rates of run-off and flow patterns that currently existed on the site would be maintained by the insertion of a level spreader, silt fencing and stone check dams.  He noted that all State permits for the latter items had been obtained.  The Planning Assistant stated that the revised Drainage Report dated September 14, 2004, had been submitted by the applicant.  The Chairman asked if the Declaration of Covenants had been forwarded to Town Counsel.  The Planning Assistant replied it had not but that she would do so.  The Chairman stated that the Board had questioned whether Bedford Road was considered in the plan’s Traffic Impact Study and wanted the Road Agent’s input on that matter.  He suggested that the applicant also consult with the Road Agent on this issue.  The Chairman asked the results of the Environmental Impact Study.  James Nordstrom replied that the summary of the Environmental Impact Study was that there would be no impacts to the environment other than what would be affected by lot clearing.  The Chairman asked if the applicant would consider phasing the subdivision.  Brian Holt replied that although phasing was considered at the time of the previous design it had not been discussed for the newly designed version of the plan.  The Chairman stated that it would be helpful if half the lots were done in one year and the remaining thereafter, noting that the entire roadway could be built at once.  Brian Holt asked if he could research the Chairman’s request and the Chairman replied that was acceptable.  The Chairman then stated that the preference regarding bond estimate funding was that the entire amount was provided at the outset of the project rather than releasing the funds required each time a road inspection was performed which became a tedious process.  Brian Holt asked if an inspection fee estimate had yet been determined by the Town Engineer.  The Planning Assistant replied she would obtain the estimate from Dufresne-Henry, Inc.  Brian Holt stated that they had issues in the past regarding inspection fees and by releasing the funds in tandem with the billing for road inspections it afforded them some control over the process.  Jeff Kevan, PE, asked what billing procedure was followed for road inspections.  The Planning Assistant replied that the bill was routed through the Planning Department by the Town Engineer and that the Planning Department was responsible for writing the check.  The Chairman noted that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., was on a better track regarding their estimate billings.  Brian Holt stated that once the inspection fee estimate was provided the applicant could better consider the payment arrangements.  The Chairman asked if the Warranty Deed for the road had been submitted.  The Planning Assistant stated she had the deed and asked if it reflected the newly designed road.  Jeff Kevan, PE, replied that the overall description had not changed, however, the language could be reviewed by Town Counsel for corrections.  Brian Holt added that slope and drainage easements would be required for the new proposed road.  James Nordstrom suggested that a complete compilation of documents be sent to Bill Drescher, Esq., so that all materials could be reviewed
VISTA ROAD, LLC, cont.

together.  The Chairman stated that a waiver would be required for the applicant to use drill holes in place of granite bounds on the site.  Brian Holt asked if a waiver would also be required to extend the length of the cul-de-sac past the Town’s maximum.  The Chairman replied that this waiver was also required.
        Don Duhaime asked if the Subdivision Regulations were so flexible as to allow a developer to mix and match lot development within their subdivision as this applicant’s case proposed a cluster design with one additional conventional lot.  The Chairman replied that the Board had been hopeful that the applicant would remove the five-acre conventional lot from the plan.  Jeff Kevan, PE, clarified that this lot would remain with the project.  The Chairman agreed with Don Duhaime in that the five-acre conventional lot was inappropriately included with the cluster plan and thought a separate subdivision plan should be done to address that one lot.  He added that the two plans could then be considered somewhat simultaneously at the applicant’s next hearing. James Nordstrom agreed that Don Duhaime’s point was an excellent one and that two subdivision plans would be more appropriate given the conflicting lot designs.  Jeff Kevan, PE, asked if the applicant could be considered at the meeting of November 23, 2004, so as not to slow the application process.  The Planning Assistant replied this could be done as long as the application for the conventional one lot subdivision was submitted to the Planning Department on the following day so that noticed letters could be sent in a timely manner.  
        Don Duhaime asked if Hutchins Road as noted on the plan would be a Town road.  Jeff Kevan, PE, replied that Hutchins Road was labeled in error on the plan and that this road was actually a driveway to the five-acre lot.  He added that he would make the appropriate correction.  From the audience, Brandy Mitroff asked if the applicant’s subdivision plan of the five acre back lot should include a note that stated no further subdivision on that lot would occur.  She explained that she had been requested by a previous Board to do the same for a back lot she subdivided 10 years prior as assurance in case the Town ordinances were to change in the future and allow it to be subdivided.  Brian Holt stated that the applicant would have no issue with the inclusion of such a note.
        The Chairman stated that the deadline for the Board’s action needed to be extended from November 14, 2004, to at least the next meeting date with the Board and the applicant agreed.   
        James Nordstrom confirmed that the applicant’s outstanding issues were review of the plans by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., and document review by Town Counsel.  The Chairman added that submission of a new application for the subdivision of the five acre back lot was required along with written waiver requests to extend the cul-de-sac length past the Town’s maximum and to accept drill holes in stone walls in place of granite bounds.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Vista Road, LLC, Major      Subdivision 14 Lots, Location: Inkberry and Wilson Hill Roads, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5,     “R-A” District, to November 23, 2004, at 9:15 p.m.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and   it PASSED unanimously.


NEW BOSTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION &
AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES LAND CO.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Parker Road
Tax Map/Lot #3/58 & 3/56
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Betsy Dodge of the Conservation Commission, interested parties Bill Brendle and Norman Sarette.

        Betsy Dodge explained that this application was an outstanding item the Conservation Commission had been trying to address for ten years and that changes to the regime within the Commission along with Coastal Corporation’s sale to Aggregate Industries Land Company had caused it to fall by the wayside several times.  She explained that a small triangle of land remained under Aggregate’s ownership in the location of a tunnel that went under Parker Road at the first section of the railroad bed.  Betsy Dodge explained that when B&M gave up the railroad the tunnel was closed and those who used the conservation trail in that vicinity had to cross over the .3 acre piece of Aggregates land to re-connect with the trail on the right side of the railroad bed heading towards Route 114.  She explained that because this small triangle of land was of no value to Aggregate Industries the Commission had asked if they would be willing to turn it over to the Town and Aggregate agreed.  Betsy Dodge added that the Conservation Commission was handling the issue because they were considered stewards of the railroad bed.  Bill Brendle thought the land in question also went beyond the path along the railroad bed and not just over the tunnel.  Betsy Dodge noted the triangular section on the provided sketch.  She explained that B&M originally purchased the right-of-way for the railroad to go through and the Piscataquog Watershed Association (PWA) was later deeded the railroad trail but the small .3 acre piece remained on Aggregates’s deed.  Bill Brendle stated he had thought the land in question was a different piece and also thought Aggregate had agreed to a land swap with the Town.  Betsy Dodge replied that was not he case and noted that Bob Todd, LLS, had reviewed the deeds and surveys for the land and had also resurveyed the piece.  Bill Brendle was still unsure why the piece had remained at the time PWA’s was deeded the trail.  Betsy Dodge replied that she was also perplexed over why the piece had been overlooked.  Norm Sarette asked if the survey took into account that the Town would own three feet on either side of the tunnel access, which could affect the property lines on the Town’s deed.  Betsy Dodge stated that Bob Todd, LLS, had not raised this point when the survey was performed.  James Nordstrom stated that based on the plan notes an on-ground was performed on the triangular piece (Parcel A) of land and the land directly adjacent.  Betsy Dodge noted that the wire fence on the plan had been used as the right-of-way boundary but did not travel all the way through the parcel so a question remained as to where that boundary fell.  James Nordstrom stated that Bob Todd, LLS, in his survey report, said: “The reestablishment of the former railroad right-of-way boundary adjoining Parcel A is based on the centerline location evidenced by three railroad ties and a stone culvert found on a tangent.”, therefore, he found four points that lined up somewhere adjacent to Parcel A which is
CONSERVATION COMMISSION, AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES, cont.

how he drew the straight line to Parker road instead of veering off where the tunnel was located.  Bill Brendle stated the original railroad fence was not in the same location as the present one and questioned what became of the property in between the original placement of the fence and the railroad bed as he was sure that land had been owned by the railroad.  James Nordstrom thought Mr. Brendle’s question could be better answered by the surveyor who had attested to the boundaries.  Norm Sarette commented that the Town should ascertain the correct boundary lines etc., so that future projects that could arise for this land would not be further complicated by incorrect information.  Bill Brendle thought that after 25 years of abandonment half the railroad bed would have gone to the adjacent landowners, however, the Town purchased the land prior to that cut off time.  Betsy Dodge noted that PWA acquired the railroad bed in 1974 or 1975 and the train service had ceased in the 1930’s, therefore, B&M would have legally given up the land rather than by the default of abandonment.  The Chairman stated that Bob Todd, LLS, should map out the railroad bed and its correlation with the tunnel under Parker Road.  Betsy Dodge agreed.  James Nordstrom noted that Bob Todd, LLS, did show an opening on the north side of Parker Road as a stone box culvert with stone headers.  The Chairman thought the Conservation Commission should do further work with Bob Todd, LLS, to establish the location of the tunnel opening and why it did not align with the railroad bed’s right-of-way.  He added that when these issues were resolved the Board could properly act on the lot line adjustment requested by the Conservation Commission.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of New Boston Conservation     Commission and Aggregate Industries Land Co., Minor Subdivision, Lot Line       Adjustment, Location: Parker Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/58 and 3/56, “R-A” District, to       December 14, 2004, at a time to be determined.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it    PASSED unanimously.

WILLARD, JONATHAN & JESSICA
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Bedford Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/89-14 &12/91
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Ray Shea of Sanford Survey and the applicants, Jonathan and Jessica Willard.  No abutters were present.
        Ray Shea stated that the applicants proposed a lot line adjustment between two adjacent properties, which they owned.  He added that the properties consisted of a 2.3-acre parcel that fronted on Bedford Road with an existing house and an 11-acre lot created on Indian Falls Road.  Ray Shea explained that the applicants proposed to push the lot line of Lot #12/91 back so that it became 10 acres and the Indian Falls parcel, Lot #12/89-14, became 3.3 acres which would insure a larger buffer between themselves and the new Indian Falls subdivision.  Gordon
WILLARD, cont.

Carlstrom asked if the applicants would be willing to add a note to their subdivision plan that stated no further subdivision would occur on Lot #12/91.  Jonathan Willard replied that he was agreeable to such a note.  The Planning Assistant stated that the Board should note any plan corrections to her as she had done the plan review rather than Dufresne-Henry, Inc.  James Nordstrom stated waiver requests would be required for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies, which the Town required for minor subdivisions.  Ray Shea verbally requested waivers for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies.  The Chairman noted that the waiver requests would need to be followed up with written requests.  Gordon Carlstrom asked if the sprinkler note would be retained for Lot #12/89-14.  Ray Shea replied that all items on the original plan would be retained for the new lot.  Gordon Carlstrom asked what the tan areas represented on the plan.  Ray Shea replied that the tan areas represented wetlands and that the site was originally approved for a wetland crossing.  He added that the test pits remained the same as well.  Bob Furey inquired about the conservation easement.  Ray Shea noted the location of the conservation easement on the plan and stated that it remained as originally proposed only now it was located on two lots instead of one.  Bob Furey asked how much acreage remained on Lot #12/89-14 if the area of conservation easement was discounted.  Ray Shea replied that the lot would still have approximately two acres of contiguous dry land.  James Nordstrom noted that the Town did not deduct the easement portion out of the usable area of a lot, therefore, as long as 1.5 acres of contiguous upland remained there was no issue.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the verbal request for waivers on the Traffic, Fiscal   and Environmental Impact Studies.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED  unanimously.

        Gordon Carlstrom clarified that the waiver request would be followed up in writing.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Jonathan and Jessica Willard,        Minor Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Bedford Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/89-     14 and 12/91, “R-A” District, as complete.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it        PASSED unanimously.

        The Chairman asked the Board if they thought a site walk was necessary or if the map provided was sufficient.  The Board agreed that a site walk would not be necessary.  James Nordstrom asked if the applicant needed to settle outstanding fees.  The Planning Assistant replied that there were no outstanding fees.  James Nordstrom asked if a Driveway Permit was needed.  Ray Shea stated that a Driveway Permit had been submitted.  Gordon Carlstrom stated that the note on the plan that stated no further subdivision would be done on the lot would need to be altered to include both Lot #’s 12/89-14 and 12/91.  Ray Shea replied that he would make this change.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #04-098 for Lot #  
WILLARD, cont.

        12/89-14, 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.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan         for Jonathan and Jessica Willard, Tax Map/Lot #12/89-14 and 12/91, Bedford Road and     Indian Falls Road, subject to:

                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;                       including waivers granted; including a note on the plan that states no further                          subdivision shall occur on Lot #12/91.
                2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
           3. Payment of any outstanding fees including the cost of recording the mylar at the                   HCRD.
           The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be January 10,                  2005, confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, requiring no further action by                      the Board.  Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written                       request for extension is not submitted by that 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.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9, 2004

1.      Approval of the minutes of October 12, 2004, with or without changes.
        (Distributed at October 26, 2004, meeting)
        
        Because the Board had not yet reviewed the corrected draft it was decided the minutes of October 12, 2004, would be reviewed at the meeting of November 23, 2004.
        
2.      Distribution of minutes of October 26, 2004, with or without changes, for approval at the November 23, 2004, meeting.

        Bob Furey noted the Recording Clerk’s highlighted question on page three as to whether the Driveway Application Permit #04-094 of Miscellaneous Business Item #5 was approved for
a paved or unpaved driveway.  The Planning Assistant stated the driveway was to be paved and
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

the appropriate notations to the motion would be made.  
        
3.      Discussion, Re: driveway regulations, final draft.
        
        The Planning Assistant stated that she had made revisions to the draft that incorporated input from the Road Agent and that the Planning Coordinator had reviewed and approved of the draft.  She noted that Section #10 on page eight still needed to be addressed and wanted to confirm that Bob Furey, James Nordstrom and John Riendeau were to work on that section.  James Nordstrom and Bob Furey confirmed that they still needed to work on that portion of the draft.  Gordon Carlstrom asked if a maximum driveway grade had been specified within the draft of the Driveway Regulations as Section #9.3 regarded emergency vehicles not being able to access driveways whose grades exceeded 10%.  James Nordstrom replied that he believed the maximum grade notation had been deleted from the draft.  Gordon Carlstrom asked what the reason was for that deletion.  James Nordstrom thought that it related to how far the Town’s jurisdiction extended past the right-of-way and that sections that referenced the maximum driveway grade had been added and deleted over time.  Gordon Carlstrom stated that he preferred that the maximum grade was included somewhere in the Driveway Regulations so that the Town had a footing in the future to prevent the construction of significant driveways with sizeable grades.  Bob Furey noted the third sentence of Section 9.3 read: “These regulations do not apply to that portion of a driveway extending beyond the road right-of-way.”  James Nordstrom explained that that the intent of this section differed from that of the driveway section of the Subdivision Regulations which did not consider right-of-way bounds and that the Driveway Regulations could be interpreted in conjunction with the Zoning Regulations and Site Plan Regulations as affecting lots of record.  Gordon Carlstrom clarified that new lots would be bound to the terms of the Subdivision Regulations versus Driveway Regulations.  James Nordstrom replied this was correct.  Bob Furey asked if the maximum driveway entrance grade of 10% was mentioned in the Subdivision Regulations.  Gordon Carlstrom replied that it was and commented that driveway lights at the entrance of the driveway should be included as well.  The Planning Assistant stated that discussed that item with the Planning Coordinator and had done some research on-line also.  She added that in reviewing the language examples for this issue she believed a separate ordinance might be required.  James Nordstrom added that there was a small section included in the Zoning Ordinance, which inferred that no artificial lighting could be cast from private property onto public property, which was somewhat general and vague.  The Planning Assistant added that the Planning Coordinator had suggested she ask Chief Begin if any State laws would address the issue.  Bob Furey asked what scenario would see the creation of a new driveway that was not in a new subdivision.  James Nordstrom replied that an example of that scenario would be if the driveway was proposed on an existing lot of record in which case the Driveway Regulations would apply.  Bob Furey asked why the specifications for driveways within the Subdivision Regulations would not naturally mirror those of the Driveway Regulations.  James Nordstrom replied this issue had been ongoing for several years and
reiterated that the maximum grade had been included at one time along with the requirement for
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

engineered plans within the Driveway Regulations but that much information had since been deleted.  Gordon Carlstrom asked if Town Counsel had reviewed the Driveway Regulations draft.  The Planning Assistant thought that the draft would be forwarded to Town Counsel once it was considered to be in final form.
        The Planning Assistant asked that the Board review the Circular Driveway section on page nine.  The Chairman asked why both the Road Agent and the Planning Board were listed as the ultimate grantors for circular driveways.  The Planning Assistant replied that because the two entities were listed as such for secondary driveways in Section 12.2, she applied the same reference for circular driveways to maintain consistency.  Gordon Carlstrom thought this made sense.  James Nordstrom noted that although the Driveway Permit would need modification the process of approval would be the same.  The Planning Assistant stated she had included that information within the section also.
        Gordon Carlstrom asked why common driveways were referenced in the draft when the Driveway Regulations dealt with lots of record and not new lots of subdivisions.  James Nordstrom replied that although it was an unlikely scenario two lots of record could exist side by side.  The Chairman thought that point contrasted with the Common Driveway section on page eight which read: “In accordance with the goals and objectives of the Master Plan common driveways shall be encouraged wherever feasible to minimize curb cuts on the Town’s road and provide maximum safety and protection to both the traveling public and the property owners.”  He noted that this statement encouraged one curb cut over two, but conflicted with the draft’s basis for circular driveways where the Road Agent and Planning Board would allow a circular driveway as long as the original curb cut and the secondary curb cut were at least 100 feet apart.
        Gordon Carlstrom noted that that Board had previously discussed the inclusion of road classifications where circular driveways would not be allowed on feeder roads such as Bedford Road and McCurdy Road.
        The Chairman asked why the Town would charge a $10.00 to an applicant for paving their driveway.  The Planning Assistant replied that the Town currently charged $25.00 and Gordon Carlstrom explained that this charge was a way to record the upgrade on the Town’s Assessment Sheet.
        The Planning Assistant asked if the Circular Driveway section should remain in the draft.  James Nordstrom thought that it was sensible to limit the options for circular driveways on certain road classifications as Gordon Carlstrom had noted.  Don Duhaime thought circular driveways should be limited to secondary roadways only.  Gordon Carlstrom stated that he was aware that roads were in the process of being classified within the Town and thought only roads that serviced a subdivision should be allowed the circular driveway option.  The Chairman thought language could be included in the draft that said circular driveways would not be allowed on feeder roads.  Brandy Mitroff asked if the term “circular” was a misnomer as she had a circular driveway with only one entrance and that the true gist was that two curb cuts should not be allowed.  The Chairman agreed that point was the main issue.  
This will be an informational session with Jonathan and Jessica Willard to discuss a potential Site Plan of Tax Map/Lot #18/20, 20 River Road.

        The Chairman read the informational session notice.  Present in the audience were Jonathan, Jessica Willard and Gerry Perron.  No abutters or interested parties were present.
        Jessica Willard explained that Little People’s Depot preschool had been operating out of Neville Mill Hall on the property of the Molly Stark Tavern, New Boston, for 10 years.  She added that their lease would not be renewed as of the 2005-2006 school year and she and her husband were exploring the possibility of offering the school a new site in a barn located on the property of 20 River Road, New Boston.  Jonathan Willard stated they wished to review two options of a potential site plan and also discuss sewer disposal on the proposed site with the Board.  He noted that 20 River Road was owned by Jeff Lavoie and consisted of a two family dwelling and a separate barn in the back, a portion of which contained existing office space.  Jonathan Willard stated that Option #1 would utilize the road behind the property as an access way for cars dropping off and picking up students while affording parking spaces for the existing tenants.  He noted that a question arose as to whether the access road was public or if it was privately owned.  James Nordstrom asked if Jonathan Willard was referring to the access road for New Boston Central School.  Jonathan Willard replied that he was and that the lot lines for the Central School abutted those of the proposed site.  Bob Furey asked the location of the leech field for the site.  Jonathan Willard noted the location on the reference sketch and added that two septic tanks serviced the barn and the two family units.  James Nordstrom stated that whether the access road was public or private it would be considered school property, hence Town owned, and with a mutual access easement the road access issue could be handled.  Jonathan Willard agreed and stated that they could work with the Town to ascertain road usage and times of travel.  The Planning Assistant asked if the existing tenant space in the barn would have blocked access to the proposed space for the preschool.  Jonathan Willard replied that would be the case.  Regarding road access, Gordon Carlstrom suggested that traffic could be re-routed the other way on River Road.  Jessica Willard replied they were concerned that re-routing traffic in that direction could cause congestion on River Road.
        Jonathan Willard stated that Option #2 considered the scenario of the access road not being usable which would have the area behind the building as employee parking only and additional parking at the white buildings.  The Chairman stated that he favored Option #1 and suggested that Jonathan Willard confirm whether the Town or Central School owned the access road in question.  Jonathan Willard stated that Principal, Rick Matthews thought the access road was considered a public way.  Brandy Mitroff noted that before the construction of the Town’s gazebo the road was used as an access from the Town center to the location of the Central School for more than 75 years so it would be a fair assumption that the road was public.  Jonathan Willard added that he needed to confirm how much of the access road was considered public and would discuss the question further with Principal Matthews.
          Jonathan Willard then reviewed the septic issue and stated he had worked with Ray Shea who had done the calculations for the lot loading.  He stated it was determined from the calculations that based on the lot loading an increase in the size of the septic would not be allowed, therefore, composting toilets were being proposed.  Jonathan Willard noted that he had
Willard session-potential Site Plan of Tax Map/Lot #18/20, 20 River Road, cont.

spoken with local manufacturers and was informed that composting toilets had been improved upon and fully integrated and contained systems were now offered.  He added that although the State laws were somewhat vague, use of composting toilets was being allowed without contingencies.  Gerry Perron, Granite State Plumbing stated that he had spoken with the Plumbing Inspector who had confirmed that composting toilets were both acceptable and encouraged as environmentally friendly.  Jonathan Willard added that as an individual concerned about the environment he was impressed with the concept of composting toilets and thought it an excellent alternative to conventional plumbing.  Gordon Carlstrom asked if there would be any issue with the remaining water usage on the site.  Jonathan Willard replied there were no issues as one unit on the site had a toilet, sink and kitchen sink and the other unit a toilet and sink.  Gordon Carlstrom asked the square footage of the barn on the site in contrast to the size of the current preschool at Neville Mill.  Jonathan Willard replied the square footage for each was the same at 1,600 s.f.  He proposed an open concept for the first floor of the barn with office and conference space on the second floor.  James Nordstrom thought the concept was an interesting one and noted there were a couple of issues to resolve with access as the primary focus.  He also wondered if a special exception would need to be granted by the Zoning Board before the Planning Board could consider the proposal as usage for the parcel would be changed.  The Planning Assistant replied that the site as a current one or two family dwelling was permitted usage for a daycare center facility.  Gordon Carlstrom stated that life safety code issues would need to be considered regarding retrofitting the barn with sprinklers per an intensive use classification.  The Planning Assistant suggested the Willards speak with the Fire Chief regarding what type of fire suppression would be suggested for the site.  Jonathan Willard asked how the road access issue would be resolved if its public or private status could not be easily determined.  Gordon Carlstrom replied that the issue would then be handled by the Selectmen.  The Chairman asked who plowed the access road.  Gordon Carlstrom replied that the Town currently plowed the road but in the past the Central School had been responsible for plowing.  The Chairman asked how much of the road was plowed when it was handled by a private contractor.  Gordon Carlstrom noted that during that period the horse shoe turn-around toward the white buildings was not in existence.  Brandy Mitroff noted that this issue should be resolved as the access road was the emergency evacuation route from the Central School to the Town center and if a portion of it was not plowed by the Town that should be considered.  The Chairman asked the Willards to keep the Board informed of their findings on the subject.

GAGNON, MICHAEL                                 Adjourned from 10/26/04
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
GAGNON, cont.

Dahlberg and the applicant, Michael Gagnon.  No abutters were present.
        Mike Dahlberg submitted copies of the revised plan to the Board and noted that the required floor plans were now shown on Sheet #2 of the plan set.  He added that although parking spaces were not delineated he had shown on the plan that space was available for six cars at the front of the site, 14 along the right of way and eight at the rear of the business to equal 25 possible parking spaces.  Mike Dahlberg noted that the floor plan illustrated tire storage and work areas.  Don Duhaime asked if the business only dealt with tires.  Mike Gagnon stated this was the case.  Bob Furey asked for a description of the area labeled “F308” on the plan.  Mike Dahlberg replied this was the proposed grade at the base of the foundation wall where the contour would be brought across to maintain drainage.  James Nordstrom added that this area was noted at the time of the site walk.  Gordon Carlstrom asked if a fire truck length could be handled around the back of the business.  James Nordstrom replied that there was access to the rear portion of the building although a fire truck could not drive completely around it due to the shape of the addition.  Gordon Carlstrom asked if there was significant storage kept outside.  Mike Dahlberg replied there was and noted those areas on the plan.  Michael Gagnon stated much of the storage outside was used truck rims stored on pallets.  Gordon Carlstrom noted that he asked the question to confirm there were not excessive amounts of storage items that could attract water and result in run-off towards the adjacent wetlands.  James Nordstrom asked Michael Gagnon if he had ever had unfriendly fire on the site.  Michael Gagnon replied he had not.
        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Michael Gagnon, Major Site   
        Plan, Garage Expansion, Location: 524 North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/82, “Com”         
        District, as complete.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        The Chairman stated that the site was zoned as commercial and the only non-conforming part of the plan was the existing residency.  The Planning Assistant concurred.  The Chairman then asked if any issues arose on the site walk.  James Nordstrom replied that the only issue was that fire access was not available around the entire perimeter of the building, but noted that three points of access were available for emergency vehicles.  The Planning Assistant stated she had E-mailed Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, concerning this issue but had not received a reply to date.
Bob Furey asked if any waivers were required.  The Planning Assistant replied no waivers were needed.  The Chairman asked Michael Gagnon when he hoped to have the expansion completed.  Michael Gagnon replied that he planned to have the expansion completed by February, 2005, and would begin the project within the next thirty days if weather permitted.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the site plan for Michael P. Gagnon, to expand the     existing tire sales garage by adding a 1,022 s.f. addition, 524 North Mast Road, Tax    
        Map/Lot #3/82, subject to the following conditions:     

                CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
        1. Execution of a Site Review Agreement regarding the condition(s) subsequent:
GAGNON, cont.

           The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be December 1,                  2004, confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, requiring no further action by      
                the Board.  Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written                       request for extension is not submitted by that date, an administrative NOTICE OF                        DENIAL shall be issued without further action of the Board being required.

        CONDITION(S) SUBSEQUENT
        1. All of the site improvements are to be completed per the approved site plan;
                2. The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that                       all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to                 scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three (3)                   weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing and the opening of the                        addition to the business on the site;
           3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted                  prior to the compliance hearing;
           4. A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have been                          satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of Permit to                Operate or Certificate of Occupancy, or both.  The 1,022 s.f. addition cannot be used or                 occupied for the business until the compliance hearing has been held, and an                            affirmative finding made by the Planning Board.
                The deadline date for compliance with the conditions subsequent shall be March 31,                 2005, confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing on same as              described in item 4 above.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED                         unanimously.

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

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was the applicant, Timothy Burnham and an abutter, Rich Waters.  The Chairman clarified that the applicant wished to move his driveway so that it was more usable and did not impede the wetlands.  Timothy Burnham stated that the proposed driveway was under 500 s.f. and was originally planned to be 100 feet in length, however, would instead be 250 feet in length so that it looped around wetlands on the property.  Gordon Carlstrom noted that the new driveway would have no access to the existing garage.  Timothy Burnham replied that in the future he planned to remodel the garage into a room as he could not access the garage from a driveway due to the slope of the land.  James Nordstrom asked if there was a door on the back of the garage.  Timothy Burnham
BURNHAM, cont.

replied there was.  The Chairman asked if the proposed driveway was staked and Timothy Burnham replied it was.  The Chairman then asked if the applicant had planned to construct the driveway this fall and if it would be paved.  Timothy Burnham replied he had planned to construct the new unpaved driveway this fall and added that he had employed Bob Todd, LLS, to draft the rerouted design.  Gordon Carlstrom asked if a Dredge and Fill Permit would be required.  Timothy Burnham replied that it would no be necessary and not State defined.  James Nordstrom then pointed out the end of the jurisdictional wetland and the limits of the poorly drained soils shown on the plan.  Don Duhaime asked if the wet area noted near the re-routed driveway was always wet.  Timothy Burnham replied that he thought it was a seasonally wet area.  The Chairman stated that it appeared Bob Todd, LLS, had mapped the area for the proposed driveway in order to avoid wet areas.  Timothy Burnham noted that Bob Todd, LLS, had staked the driveway after he flagged it.  Bob Furey asked what the revised grade would be for the new driveway.  Timothy Burnham replied that its entrance grade would be 10%, which should be somewhat, reduced during construction and then level off on the up-slope to 5 or 6% versus the prior 20% grade.  The Board thought a drive-by viewing of the proposed driveway would suffice in contrast to a formal site walk.  Timothy Burnham asked how the application would proceed after tonight’s hearing.  The Chairman explained that the Board needed to view the driveway in order to assure that its design would not adversely impact the site.  The Planning Assistant noted that she had done the plan review and added that the required three copies of the construction design plan had not yet been submitted.  James Nordstrom asked the applicant if he had the construction estimates for the wetland crossing.  Timothy Burnham submitted the estimates for the driveway construction and the addition.  James Nordstrom explained that as part of the Conditional Use Permit the applicant was required to put up a bond for the construction of the wetland crossings on the site.  The Chairman noted that the estimate for the crossing was need so that the bond amount could be ascertained.  Gordon Carlstrom added that the form of surety was also required.  The Planning Assistant stated the form of surety could be cash, check, bond or letter of credit.  Timothy Burnham replied that the estimate for the crossings and the driveway crossing was $6,250 and he would determine the estimate for the crossings alone.  James Nordstrom stated that as the Planning Assistant had mentioned, the construction details for the crossings were required and noted that Bob Todd, LLS, could provide this additional detail.  Bob Furey stated that the applicant should assure that the builder constructed the driveway according to the plan specifications so there would be no compliance issues.  Timothy Burnham felt confident this would be done as the chosen builder worked in tandem with Phil Brooks who in turn had worked frequently with Bob Todd, LLS.
        Tim Burnham submitted the application fee in the amount of $67.00 to the Board.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Timothy Burnham, Conditional        
        Use Permit, Location: 49 Arrow Wood Drive, Tax Map/Lot #12/35-14, to November 23,       
        2004, at 8:25 p.m.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.    


MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

4.      Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan, for Robert & June Edwards, Map/Lot #2/17, Tucker     
        Mill and Dougherty Roads by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

        The Chairman and Vice Chairman (in the absence of the Secretary) endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.

5.      Signature required for the approval of a Driveway Permit Application for Daniel         Donovan, Jr., Bedford Road, Map/Lot #9/63-01, for a proposed driveway, by the   Planning Board Chairman.        

        The Chairman signed the above noted Driveway Permit Application.

6.      A copy of a Memorandum dated November 2, 2004, from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, to the Board of Selectmen, Re: Rick Herget & Carol Hayse (Rock Removal Operation), was distributed for the Board’s information.

        The Chairman stated that the removal of material as part of a house construction was considered incidental.  James Nordstrom noted that both Burton Reynolds and Dennis Sarette concluded in their findings that no adverse issue existed.

7.      A copy of a letter received October 28, 2004, from Andrew A. Prolman, Prunier, Leonard & Prolman, P.A., to Michele Brown, New Boston Planning Board, Re: Hopkins Road   
        Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #13/15, was distributed for the Board’s action.
        
        The Planning Board Assistant explained that the applicant requested an extension date six months beyond the current deadline date for their conditions precedent.  Because the current deadline date was not referenced in the above letter the Planning Assistant referenced it from previous minutes and stated the date was December 1, 2004.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to extend the deadline date for the conditions precedent as       
        requested in Andrew Prolman, Esq.’s, letter dated October 28, 2004, to May 1, 2005.     
        Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.  

8.      Daily road inspection reports dated, September 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, October 1st, 7th, 11th,  
        12th and 14th, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Highland Hills, were distributed for the  
        Board’s information.

9.      Daily road inspection reports dated, October 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 11th, and 12th, from      
        Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Indian Falls, LLC, were distributed for the Board’s
        information.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

10.     Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Jacqueline and Jeffrey Fillmore and the Town of Mont Vernon, Map/Lot #13/16, Hopkins Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

        The Chairman and Vice Chairman (in the absence of the Secretary) endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.
        
11.     Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan, for Peter F. Beers, Map/Lot #15/8, Laurel Lane and Mason Drive, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

        The Chairman and Vice Chairman (in the absence of the Secretary) endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.

12.     Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan, for Harvey J. Dupuis Family Trust, Map/Lot #12/93, 93-19, 21, & 22, Carriage Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

        The Chairman and Vice Chairman (in the absence of the Secretary) endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.

13a.    Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Popple Road,      Map/Lot #6/32-13, for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action. (Refer to site walk of       11/06/04)

        The Planning Assistant stated that the applicant requested a permit for construction, therefore, she included at the bottom of the application: “The driveway shall be constructed according to the approved subdivision plan of Highland Hills, Plan # 32832, culvert and additional inspection.”  She noted that she had revised the remaining Driveway Permit Applications for this applicant to include the same footnote, which would require the Chairman’s initials.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #04-099, as        captioned, 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.

13b.    Initials required by Planning Board Chairman, Re: revision of RJ Moreau Communities,    
        LLS’s driveway permit applications.     
        The Chairman initialed the above noted revisions.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

14.     Driveway Permit Application revision for Indian Falls, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #12/89-11,      
        changing from shared with Lot #13 to separate, for the Board’s action.

        The Planning Assistant stated that the shared driveway for Lot #’s 11 and 13 was being changed to individual driveways for each lot.  Don Duhaime noted that Lot #11 had grade stakes that were labeled level spreader and he questioned if the stakes were being recycled for use as a level spreader could not be placed in the same location.  James Nordstrom noted that the newly proposed driveways appeared to head towards the wetlands but were most likely looping around them.  The Chairman stated that the driveways should be checked for proper markings and the level spreader question clarified.  Don Duhaime asked what distance was considered too close for driveways as abutting Lot #’s 11, 12, and 13 appeared very close as though they should share a common drive.  The Chairman replied that the Board preferred that not more than two lots shared a common driveway and in that case the lot line would also be shared.  He added that while the Board sought to minimize curb cuts sight distance was always considered.    

15.     Schedule a compliance site walk for a Conditional Use Permit for Benjamin Strauss and   
        Stephanie Ridley (previously Timothy White and Cheryl Christner), Beard Road, Tax       
        Map/Lot #5/38, for the Board’s information.

        The Planning Assistant explained that the Whites sold the above property and the existing application now transferred to Strauss and Ridley.  The Chairman asked if a drive-by of the property would suffice.  James Nordstrom thought the site was a distance off the roadway and added that it involved viewing two poorly drained soil crossings.  The Board decided they could drive into the site for a viewing.  The Planning Assistant stated she would inform the applicants who were scheduled on the agenda for December 14, 2004.

16.     A copy of the Minutes and Notice of Decision from the ZBA, Re: Lull Road Corporation,   West Lull Place, Tax Map/Lot #5/38, was distributed for the Board’s information.
        
17.     2004 Cumulative Supplement to the NH Planning and Land Use Regulations. (Copy in        
        Office)

18.     Read File: Public Notice from the Town of Lyndeborough Planning Board, Re: Public       
        Hearing on November 18, 2004, renewal of excavation permit, Granite State Concrete      
        Co., Salisbury Road.

        At 10:15 p.m. Bob Furey MOVED to adjourn.  James Nordstrom seconded the motion
        and it PASSED unanimously.

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