New Boston, NH - Planning Board Minutes 08/24/04

Planning Board Minutes 08/24/04

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members James Nordstrom, and Travis Daniels; 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 Julie Dillon, Arthur Siciliano, LLS, Mike Sullivan, Sam Proctor, George St. John, Kevin St. John, Dave Kirsten, Kim DiPietro, Ray Shea, Jeffrey and Jacqueline Fillmore, Kevin and Jennifer Bourgeois, Lynn Strong, Bo Strong, Christine Filteau, Mark Moser, PE, Christine Quirk, Barry and Wayne Charrest, Patricia Monbouquette, David Smith, Diane Corricelli, Jacob Gray, Debbie and David Jewers, Roger Noonan, Ira Gray, Lynn Wawrzyniak, Dawn Carey, Andrew Prolman, Esq., Joseph Swiezynski and Don Gagnon.

DILLON, JULIE Adjourned from 07/27/04

Public Hearing/NRSPR/Boarding Riding Stable

Location: 422 Riverdale Road

Tax Map/Lot #3/72

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Julie Dillon was present in the audience. No abutters were in attendance.

Julie Dillon stated that she had completed the design for the manure storage area and its location had been noted on the site plan. She then submitted copies of the manure storage area design to the Board.

The Chairman asked if the manure storage area would be angled downhill or if it would face the existing house on the property. He also asked how the storage area would be emptied and loaded. Julie Dillon replied that the storage area would face downhill and be loaded and emptied from the front. The Chairman thought that while the concept for unloading was good it would be difficult to practice unless the grade of the hill in that location was built up considerably. Julie Dillon stated that she would have that area leveled so the manure storage area could be easily accessed. James Nordstrom noted that due to the slope of the hill a flat area would be necessary for loading and removal from the manure storage area. Julie Dillon replied that she would have the top of the hill leveled to ensure that the flood line was not compromised. The Chairman thought a lot of fill would be required to bring the slope of the hill to a satisfactory level for that use. Julie Dillon said that she planned to have the manure storage area installed near the fencing on the uppermost level area of the hill that would support the 15 foot width of the structure and would reflect this on the site plan. She added that she might opt for a gravel pad to be spread before the concrete slab was placed and would also work around the vinyl fencing if necessary. James Nordstrom said it appeared the vinyl fencing line ended at the location of the manure storage area and, therefore, some section might need to be removed.

The Chairman asked how the manure storage area would be emptied. Julie Dillon replied that a bucket loader would be used. The Chairman asked if the loader would need to drive through the horse rink to get to the storage area and Julie Dillon said that it would. The Chairman believed that a simpler and more cost effective solution would be to build the manure

DILLON, cont.

storage area into the side of the hill rather than at the top where fill would be required for its construction. He added this scenario allowed for a dumping area at the back of the structure rather than the front. Julie Dillon asked if the Chairman could expand on the design. The Chairman stated that the wooden wall proposed for the back of the manure storage area could be replaced with concrete because it would now sit in the slope of the hill to create the dumping area. He added that unloading could still be done from the front and the new location would allow the loader to gain access by the rear of the barn, which was less disruptive than driving through the horse rink. Julie Dillon agreed.

The Chairman asked the width of the manure storage area. Julie Dillon replied it was 15 feet. The Chairman noted that she should make sure the roof was wide enough and asked how she would confirm this. Julie Dillon said she would compare the width of the loader’s bucket shovel against the width of the roof. The Chairman thought this was a good idea and suggested Julie Dillon seek input from the loader operators when designing the storage area as they would have better insight than an architect. Julie Dillon replied that she did plan to involve the loader operators in the overall design of the storage area.

The Chairman stated that the final design and location of the manure storage area would need to be included on the site plan in order to fulfill compliance and believed that all the other items on the plan were compliant which included lighting and modifications to the driveway. He noted that the driveway modification was that it would not be used for the applicant’s business. The Chairman further added that the concrete slab and roofing proposed on the plan for the manure storage area met the requirements of the Board and said the applicant should confirm that the final design properly enabled the loading process.

Julie Dillon asked how the application would proceed once the final design for the storage area was completed. The Chairman replied that the Board would review the site plan and approve it once all items had been addressed. He added that Julie Dillon could then complete the necessary work to the site and the Board would do a compliance site walk followed by a compliance hearing. Julie Dillon asked if she would be allowed to conduct business once her construction to the site was completed. James Nordstrom clarified that once the site was found to be in compliance she would be allowed to conduct business.

The Chairman asked if Julie Dillon would like to voluntarily extend her application deadline to October 30, 2004, as tonight’s hearing would need to be adjourned to another meeting date. Julie Dillon agreed to the extension date.

Julie Dillon asked if a retaining wall should be incorporated along the back of the manure storage area. The Chairman agreed and added that concrete would be a better choice than pressure treated wood for the retaining wall as the loader shovel would be scraping against it when removing the manure.

The Chairman asked if the site plan could be revised by September 28, 2004, and Julie Dillon said it could be.

James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Julie Dillon, Non-Residential

Site Plan Review, Boarding and Riding Stable, Location: 422 Riverdale Road, Tax

DILLON, cont.

Map/Lot #3/72, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to September 28, 2004, at 7:00

p.m. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

CURTIS HILL, LLC Adjourned from 07/27/04

Work Session/Design Review

Major Subdivision/7 Lots

Location: Old Coach Road

Tax Map/Lot #10/3

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Art Siciliano, LLS, and the applicants, Mike Sullivan and Sam Proctor of Curtis Hill, LLC. Abutters and interested parties present were George St. John, Kevin St. John, Dave Kirsten and Kim DiPietro.

Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that the applicant proposed to construct a 7 lot subdivision on the south side of Old Coach Road. He added that a site walk had been done with members of the Board and an additional site walk was held with Betsy Dodge of the Conservation Commission today. Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that the applicant had applied for driveway permits and had received State Subdivision Approval.

The Chairman stated that the Board was still waiting for a response from the Fire Wards regarding the issue of sprinklers versus fire cistern. Art Siciliano, LLS, asked if there was a reason for the delay. The Chairman replied there was some confusion as to whether the next lot on the parcel’s original subdivision would prompt installation of a cistern as specified on that former site plan. He added that because sprinklers were now the accepted safety standard for fire water supply by the Town the question arose that sprinklers and a cistern might be warranted in order to sustain the lots formerly built. Art Siciliano, LLS, said that he understood the dilemma to be a unique issue and wondered if the Town had any similar cases in the past. The Planning Board Assistant stated that she had spoken with the Coordinator who said no such precedent had occurred in the Town before this application. The Chairman stated that the issue evolved when the development of the former subdivision ended at the point where a cistern would be required and the subsequent change in the Town’s requirement from cisterns to sprinklers for fire water supply. Gordon Carlstrom added that the situation became more unique because the next lot developed on the parcel’s former subdivision plan explicitly warranted installation of a cistern. The Chairman agreed, questioning whether owners in the previous subdivision may have paid fees towards a future cistern or where a proposed cistern would be located in the subdivision. He wondered if there would be a willingness to substitute sprinklers in place of a cistern or if the Fire Wards would require both. Gordon Carlstrom thought a third scenario could include sprinklers and a smaller cistern. The Chairman concurred and added that such a scenario was a clearly defined possibility allowed by the Subdivision Regulations with proper justification. He asked what the applicant would be willing to offer in this case as their preference would be mentioned to the Fire Wards. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that the applicant would like to use sprinklers for the new lots. The Chairman asked how this choice would be justified to the

CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.

current owners of the prior subdivision who had expected a fire cistern would be installed on the next lot.

Sam Proctor asked if more background information could be provided on this issue as they were not made aware of the cistern requirement at the time the property was purchased. James Nordstrom noted that this information would have been discovered in a title search of the property. Sam Proctor replied that there was no such information in the title search. James Nordstrom added that the recorded plan’s notes at the Registry of Deeds clearly noted any addition to the former subdivision would require that a fire cistern be installed. Sam Proctor asked how many previous lots were involved in the cistern issue. The Chairman replied that 4 lots were involved. George St. John noted that at the time of the former subdivision the Planning Board had determined four lots were involved with three new lots located on Butterfield Mill Road and one existing house on Old Coach Road. He added that this was the point in time before Town regulations changed from cistern to sprinkler requirements. George St. John went on to explain that the distance between lot lines from the house on Old Coach Road to the closest of the three new lots on Butterfield Mill Road exceeded 5,000 feet and, therefore, a cistern would not be able to adequately provide fire protection to all 4 lots regardless of its location.

Kevin St. John asked if the decision to install a cistern or provide sprinklers to the proposed lots of the new subdivision plan would be influenced based on a consensus by the owners of the former lots in question. The Chairman replied that he would be interested to know those opinions and what the lot owners had anticipated but stressed that the Fire Wards input was still required.

Dave Kirsten stated that when he purchased his property on Old Coach Road his deed also noted that any further subdivision of his land would require installation of a fire cistern. He asked if he could now assume that sprinklers would be accepted in place of that cistern. The Chairman replied that this was the gist of the issue at hand because consistency would need to be applied for the lot owners going forward. He added that sprinklers have generally been regarded as the best means of fire protection for homes in the Town and the Board had not seen a case where a cistern was required over sprinklers since the regulations were changed in favor of the latter. The Chairman noted that if the proposed lots were all going to be farms with separate barns or the area of the site was found to be more susceptible to high winds where fires could spread more quickly then the Subdivision Regulations might allow a cistern in conjunction with sprinklers although he had not seen such a justification to this point. He noted that this was not the case for this proposal as it was simply a residential subdivision.

Kevin St. John asked how current lot owners whose property records also specified cistern requirements would be considered if the applicant was allowed to install sprinklers on the proposed house lots. The Chairman replied that this was the main issue of the application but that a consistent answer would most probably apply. Kevin St. John asked how the notes would be altered on the existing home owners’ plans. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the plans would need to be amended. The Chairman agreed and stated that the plans would need to be amended if owners chose to subdivide their land in lieu of different regulations being in place for the Town where more efficient means of fire fighting methods had been adopted. Dave Kirsten

CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.

asked what the case would be if the regulations ever reverted back to cistern use. The Chairman did not see a reason why that would occur. Gordon Carlstrom added that sprinklers were easier to maintain, were less costly and by advanced technology, could no longer be disabled once installed. George St. John noted that sprinklers were more adept at saving lives than cisterns. The Chairman agreed and reiterated that he had yet to see a case where a cistern was preferred by the Board over sprinklers.

Dave Kirsten asked if his plans could be adjusted to note a sprinkler requirement instead of the cistern requirement if the applicant’s plan was approved for sprinklers. Gordon Carlstrom replied that such an adjustment would be triggered if he applied for a subdivision of his property otherwise he could seek legal counsel to explore that adjustment without such an application.

Dave Kirsten stated that he was concerned that without taking any action on subdividing his property his records would still carry the obsolete note of a cistern requirement should the applicant’s plan be adjusted to allow sprinklers for the proposed lots. Gordon Carlstrom suggested that legal counsel could better research that question. The Chairman added that this was the case and the Planning Board could not provide an affirmative answer to the question.

Kim DiPietro stated that she represented the Piscataquog Area Trailways and wished to submit a map of active horseback trails in the area of two Class VI roads adjacent to the proposed development. She added that there was no clear delineation of the right-of-way for a 10 acre parcel on Greenfield Road and asked if the developer could better delineate that road so that any future dispute over the trail passage through the Class VI portion could be avoided should building occur on that lot. Gordon Carlstrom thought the issue could be quelled if monumentation was set to delineate the boundaries. Kim DiPietro noted that because home owners sometimes extended their lawns into right-of-ways, issues of trespassing arose that were unwarranted. She added that the other unnamed Class VI road, although adjacent to the development, was not as much of an issue because it was clearly delineated on both sides by a stone wall. The Chairman asked Art Siciliano, LLS, if the applicant’s property bordered the two Class VI roads that Kim DiPietro referred to and Art Siciliano, LLS, said it did. George St. John stated that he had previously employed Art Siciliano, LLS, to set bounds on his own property and assumed the same would be done for the applicant’s lots. Mr. Siciliano, LLS, said he had not intended to set markers in the location Kim DiPietro questioned but could set two more monuments if that was preferred. Gordon Carlstrom said this should be done anyway as the area was located on the Class VI portion of the Road.

Kevin St. John asked if existing lot owners could submit for legal updates to the cistern note on their property records similar to the process for lot line adjustments versus seeking legal counsel. Gordon Carlstrom replied that the Board would consider this a legal question to be submitted to Town Counsel anyway. The Chairman said that they would attempt to have an answer to Kevin St. John’s question by the next meeting date as there were different aspects that required consideration on this application. Kevin St. John added that he thought the applicant’s plan looked good so far and had no other issues with applicant to this point.

Sam Proctor asked if they could be forwarded the Fire Ward’s comments prior to the next meeting date. The Chairman thought that because the Board should have a response from the

CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.

Fire Wards within the next two weeks the Board could discuss those comments as a miscellaneous business item at the September 14^th, 2004, meeting and then forward that information and Board discussion to the applicant. Dave Kirsten asked if he could obtain a copy of the Fire Wards response as well. The Chairman replied that if the information was considered public than this could be done.

Art Siciliano, LLS, asked if the Conservation Commission had noted any issues to the Board after their site walk of the property. The Planning Board Assistant replied that there were no issues and she could fax a copy of the Conservation Commission’s review to the applicant.

James Nordstrom asked the status of the application. The Chairman replied that the application was classified as preliminary. Art Siciliano, LLS, asked if the application could be considered as a final at the meeting of September 28^th, 2004. The Planning Board Assistant noted that approval would be conditional to the Fire Wards response. The Chairman added that the only problem he could foresee was if the Fire Wards did not respond to the Board in a timely manner and the applicant did not wish to extend the Board’s deadline date for action on the application although he did not think this would come to pass. He noted that the applicant could apply for a final application but it would not move the application along any faster as the number of meetings held was driven by the process of information gathering that evolved. He added that at least two more meetings would be required as the Fire Wards response would be discussed at the next meeting and the plans might then need to be modified. James Nordstrom clarified that because the application was originally submitted as preliminary the Board was required under the Subdivision Regulations to act on it in that regard after which the applicant could then submit for approval of the final application. He asked if the applicant was under the impression that the application was already in the final status and Art Siciliano, LLS, said he was. The Chairman noted that a vote on a preliminary application was not required. James Nordstrom agreed and said the preliminary application could be adjourned at tonight’s meeting and a final application submitted at the next meeting. The Chairman clarified that a minimum of two more meetings would still be required so the application status was moot.

James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Curtis Hill, LLC, Major

Subdivision, 7 Lots, Location: Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #10/3, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, to September 28, 2004, at 7:15 p.m. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

FILLMORE, JEFFREY & JACQUELINE Adjourned from 07/27/04

Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/4 Lots

Location: Hopkins Road

Tax Map/Lot #13/16

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

FILLMORE, cont.

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ray Shea of Sanford Survey and the applicants, Jeffrey and Jacqueline Fillmore. Abutters present were Kevin and Jennifer Bourgeois.

Ray Shea stated that the applicant proposed to subdivide 4 lots on the south side of Hopkins Road, which would include the existing house and a 5.5 acre parcel that crossed the Town line into Mont Vernon, NH. He added that two front lots and two backlots were proposed and the Mont Vernon parcel would be one of those backlots. Ray Shea stated a site walk had been held with members of the Board and there were no outstanding issues. He noted that because part of the property was in Mont Vernon, that town’s planning board was required to review the site plan even though no subdivision would occur on that portion of land. He added that the applicant was in the process of scheduling a meeting with the Mont Vernon planning board in one month and sought conditional approval of the site plan at tonight’s hearing based on that information.

The Chairman asked if the waivers requested by the applicant had been acted upon and the Planning Board Assistant said they had. The Chairman stated no concerns had arisen from the site walk with members of the Board. James Nordstrom added there were no indications on the site walk that the land was unsuitable for the plan proposed.

The Chairman asked if there were any other items that needed to be addressed. James Nordstrom noted that the plans would either need to be amended to reflect monumentation to be set or certification that they had been set would need to be provided. He asked Ray Shea if he had ever dealt with another example of a site plan with land in two towns. Ray Shea said he had been involved with such a plan, however, the land was being subdivided in both towns and neither planning board wanted to approve the plan ahead of the other. He noted that in the applicant’s case the land in Mont Vernon was not being subdivided so the scenario was not as involved. Ray Shea surmised that with conditional approval from the Board at tonight’s hearing the Mont Vernon planning board would most likely sign off on the plans with the possible inclusion of a note to the plans.

The Chairman asked what the acreage was of the Mont Vernon parcel without the tail portion. Ray Shea replied that portion was 5.3 acres as noted on the plans and that the remaining acreage qualified for subdivision exclusive of that parcel. The Chairman asked if there was a note on the plans that stated no further subdivision would occur on the 5.3 acre parcel and Ray Shea said there was.

James Nordstrom stated there was an outstanding fee of $75.00 relative to the driveway application. Ray Shea said this fee would be covered by the applicant.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the application for the Major Subdivision for

Jeffrey and Jacqueline Fillmore, 4 Lots on Hopkins Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/16, subject to:

FILLMORE, 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. Submission of Certificate of Bounds Set confirming that the monumentation has been

placed on the final plat to be recorded at the HCRD, (if necessary).

4. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.

5. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application, including the cost of recording documents at the HCRD.

6. Confirmation from the town of Mont Vernon, NH, on the status of Lot #10, and signatures on the recorded plan.

The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be December 1, 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 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.

Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

BRADLEY WILDE EDUC. VENTURES, LLC (OWNER) Adjourned from 07/27/04

STRONG, LYNN O. (APPLICANT)

Public Hearing/NRSPR/Daycare Addition

Location: 643 N. Mast Road

Tax Map/Lot #3/49

Commercial “Com” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ray Shea, Lynn Strong, Bo Strong and Christine Filteau. No abutters were in attendance.

Ray Shea stated that the applicant proposed to increase the usage of the existing daycare facility with a 2,955 s.f. addition on the existing building, a new septic system located between the building and the right-of-way, and four additional spaces added to the existing parking lot. He added that at the prior meeting the Board had agreed to a drive-by of the site versus a site walk. Ray Shea further added that State Septic Approval was pending with design flows and gallons per day usage addressed. He noted that the applicant had dealt with the NHDOT at which time Lynn Strong produced a letter from that agency which stated that the existing Driveway Permit could be updated/amended to support the construction of the proposed addition with the standard renewal date of one year from the letter date. A copy of this letter was submitted to the Board.

James Nordstrom stated he drove by the site and asked what the stakes on the property represented. Lynn Strong replied that the stakes marked the proposed location of the new septic

WILDE, STRONG, cont.

system. She added that she could not stake the location of the addition as this was located in the children’s’ play area. James Nordstrom stated that he saw no issues with the site.

The Chairman asked if any new vegetation or shrubbery would be added to the site and Ray Shea said there would not be.

Gordon Carlstrom asked if the well easement had been obtained. Lynn Strong replied that she did not have it as of yet but was in contact with the abutter involved. James Nordstrom clarified that the applicant was still in the process of negotiating the well radius with the abutter. Ray Shea said this was the case and the attorney for the abutter was reviewing the well easement

at this time. He noted that the State’s approval of the new septic system was contingent on the abutter’s agreement to the well easement. The Chairman asked the Board if they wished to move forward with the application with the well easement and septic approval in a pending status. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the well easement would require review by Town Counsel. Ray Shea replied that the Coordinator had looked into this question after the last meeting and it was determined that the easement would not need Town Counsel’s review. James Nordstrom added that the State’s issue with the septic system was relative to flows. Ray Shea noted that the State wanted clarification on the flows and this was resolved prior to submission of the application. James Nordstrom stated that certain situations had warranted that the Board should wait for the State’s approval such as a proposed new subdivision that would be dependent on the State’s affirmation of the septic design. He added that this case differed as the applicant could still operate the existing business even if the State denied septic approval. Gordon Carlstrom noted that if the State denied the septic approval it could result in the need for a new septic design, which would then alter the site plan. James Nordstrom explained that if the Board granted conditional approval of the application and the septic system design was denied by the State, the Board’s approval would be voided and the applicant would have to return with a new application. Ray Shea replied that he did not foresee an issue with the State’s approval of the septic design as technical background information to the design was all that had been requested.

Gordon Carlstrom stated that there were no construction issues with the driveway as it was not being moved and there were also no issues with increased traffic on the road where the site was located. Lynn Strong was in agreement.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Non-Residential Site Plan for Lynn O. Strong, to expand the existing child daycare facility by constructing a 2,955 s.f. addition on land

owned by Bradley Wilde Educational Ventures, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #3/49, subject to:

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:

1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing.

2. Submission of the septic system approval from the State of NH, DES.

3. Submission of any revised driveway permit from the State of NHDOT. (if applicable)

4. Execution of a Site Review Agreement.

5. Submission of the executed well easement for the property.

WILDE, STRONG, cont.

The deadline for complying with the conditions(s) precedent shall be November 1, 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 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.

CONDITIONS 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 the compliance hearing and the opening of 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. No occupancy/use of the 2,955 s.f. addition shall be permitted until the site improvements as noted have been completed, and a site inspection and compliance hearing held.

The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be September 1, 2005, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing on same as described in item 4 above.

Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

QUIRK, THOMAS & CHRISTINE

Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/Non-Residential Site Plan Review/40 Camp Sites

Location: Cochran Hill Road

Tax Map/Lot #7/11

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Mark Moser, PE, Christine Quirk and Barry and Wayne Charrest. Abutters and interested parties present were Patricia Monbouquette, David Smith, Diane Corricelli, Debbie and David Jewers, Dawn Carey and Jacob Gray.

Mark Moser, PE, stated that the applicant proposed to add 40 tent sites to her property and noted that the overall site map showed the last 10 tent sites approved and the proposed 40 tent sites of this application.

The Chairman asked how locations for tent sites were decided. Christine Quirk replied that tent sites were chosen based on dry areas away from wetlands. The Chairman asked if the

QUIRK, cont.

amount of tent sites in that area was now maximized with the addition of the proposed 40 sites and Mark Moser, PE, said it was.

Mark Moser, PE, stated that the applicant received State Subdivision Approval and the disturbed areas of the site plan were under 100,000 s.f. He added that the Coordinator requested some minor additions and corrections to the site plan. Mark Moser, PE, further added that the applicant was requesting several waivers: Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies, field monumentation, Site Specific Soils Mapping and features within 400 feet of the project boundary. The Chairman asked why the waiver for features within 400 feet of the project boundary was requested. Mark Moser, PE, replied that the surrounding land

was undeveloped. The Chairman asked what abutted the 400 foot marks on the site plan and if abutters’ properties were nearby. Mark Moser, PE, replied that a marsh abutted the 400 foot mark from the project boundary and Christine Quirk noted that she owned the next piece of property closest to that measure. James Nordstrom thought that the 400 foot measure was interpreted as from the boundary of the parcel and not from the boundary of the project area within the parcel. Mark Moser, PE, agreed that the interpretation was vague and could be considered either way but for small projects such as this he interpreted it to be based from the boundary of the project area. James Nordstrom stated that the Town looked for physical features within 400 feet of the parcel regardless of where the work was being done on the site. Mark Moser, PE, in that regard, illustrated the 400 foot area boundaries as undeveloped land to the north, a gravel pit and land owned by the Town. He added that the final boundary was within 1,800 feet of a developed subdivision, which was a considerable distance. James Nordstrom stated that, given that information, he had no issues with the waiver request for physical features within 400 feet. The Chairman agreed that this was his only question on the waiver requests and was satisfied with the explanation given.

Mark Moser, PE, stated that the final waiver request was for the “no increase in run-off” stipulation in the Storm Water Management Regulations in addition to representing affected features within 400 feet of the property bounds. He explained that the site was surrounded by a marsh but there were no developed lands downstream that would be affected by the run-offs. Gordon Carlstrom asked if mappings or boundaries of the marsh land were shown on the site plan. Mark Moser, PE, showed a 40 scale drawing of the site plan that illustrated the existing woods road through the property, the marsh land, which wrapped around the site and the limits of poorly drained soils. He noted that these items were shown on the plan in order to meet the Town’s required setbacks to poorly and very poorly drained soils.

Gordon Carlstrom asked what the dark gray circles represented on the plans. Mark Moser, PE, replied that these markings represented ledge. James Nordstrom asked where the edge of the jurisdictional wetland boundary was located and Mark Moser, PE, noted that location on the plan. He added that the line on the plan which represented the area of poorly drained soils was included in order prove that the required 75 foot setback from proposed sewer lines was maintained. The Chairman asked how many campsites had on-site sewerage. Mark Moser, PE, replied that all the sites had on-site sewerage and noted the two leech site areas proposed on the

QUIRK, cont.

site plan. The Chairman asked if the leech sites were pump filled. Mark Moser, PE, replied that the upper site relied on gravity fill and the other leech site was pump filled.

James Nordstrom asked if any phase of the applicant’s campsite development required a Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Study. Christine Quirk replied that a voluntary study was done for the previous 40 campsite application but had never been required by the Board. She added that study reported 200 additional sites could be added to the property before negative impacts occurred. The Chairman asked if that study was based on one entrance and exit point from the campground and Christine Quirk said it was. James Nordstrom noted that the application would be treated very differently regarding the waivers requested for Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies if it was a residential subdivision versus a seasonal area. The

Chairman agreed that the monumentation and soils waivers would also be viewed very differently if that was the case.

James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waiver requests specified in the letter dated July 26, 2004, from Mark Moser, PE, for Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies, monumentation to individual tent sites, Site Specific Soils Mapping, physical features surrounding the boundaries, and the requirement of no increase in run-off post development. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

James Nordstrom asked how the campsites were delineated and Christine Quirk replied that tree lines were used as delineation. The Chairman clarified that no markings were placed in the ground and Mark Moser, PE, stated that was why the waiver for monumentation was requested by the applicant.

Mark Moser, PE, stated the Coordinator had informed him a waiver request would be required for topographic contours at five foot intervals and for the 200 foot square requirement. He added that although Sanford Survey’s recordable plan did not show the contours, other plans within the set did. The Chairman thought that the issue might be that the contours needed to be shown on the recordable plans. James Nordstrom thought the interpretation might be that a site plan within the set of plans was required to show the entire boundary of the property with topographic contours at five foot intervals and asked if such a plan was within the set. Mark Moser, PE, said there was no plan within the set with those specifications. James Nordstrom explained that this was a requirement not relevant to this application, which was the reason the Coordinator suggested a waiver be requested. The Chairman noted that the 200 foot square requirement was not relative to the application and Mark Moser, PE, could verbally request the two waivers with a follow up in writing. Mark Moser, PE, made a verbal waiver request for topographic contours at five foot intervals and the inclusion of 200 foot squares on the site plan. James Nordstrom stated he had no issues with either waiver request.

James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the verbal waiver requests by Mark Moser, PE, for topographic contours at five foot intervals and the inclusion of 200 foot squares on the site plan. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

QUIRK, cont.

The Chairman stated that the application was now complete. An interested party, David Smith asked what was meant by that terminology. The Chairman replied that the application was considered complete because all the relative information requested by the Board had been provided. Another interested party, Diane Corricelli stated she did not understand what the 200 foot squares represented. The Chairman replied that the 200 foot square was a building block that must be available on a buildable lot to prove that a house can sit on dry land and also sustains a well and septic system.

James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Thomas and Christine Quirk,

Major Subdivision and Site Plan, 40 campsites, Location: Cochran Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

The Chairman stated there were no concerns with the site plan by the Fire Wards. He asked Mark Moser, PE, if the Coordinator’s checklist items had been addressed. Christine Quirk stated they had delayed the completion of the checklist items in case the Board had any additional items to add at tonight’s meeting. Mark Moser, PE, stated that one checklist item noted an abutter need to be added to the plans, however, the applicant did not believe the individual qualified as such because their property was located north east of the site. Christine Quirk added that this individual was an abutter to a different parcel of 40 acres, Tax Map/Lot #7/12, which she also owned, but did not abut the property of the campground. James Nordstrom asked if the properties were two distinct and separately taxed parcels. Christine Quirk replied that they were. The Planning Board Assistant said she would reference the tax maps to confirm this.

A site walk was scheduled for September 2, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. The Chairman asked that the wetlands be flagged, centerlines of the road marked and approximate center points of camp sites marked.

Diane Corricelli stated that she hoped the Board would consider impacts to abutters and wildlife on this application as it was stated at the applicant’s prior hearing on the buffer zone issue for the 40 campsites that the Board became concerned when abutters were negatively affected by such scenarios. She added that she had also voiced her concern at that time in a letter to the Zoning Board. Diane Corricelli went on to state that she hoped air quality from camp fires and noise levels would be considered as she experienced this being located uphill from the site. She added that in the future she would like a wildlife refuge and rehabilitation area in her back yard and wanted the woods that abutted her property to be considered a more protected area rather than a pass through for hunting and littering. Diane Corricelli summarized that she did not have an issue with the campground except when it affected the quality of life on her own property. She stated her second concern dealt with the ability of fire trucks to reach the site in a timely manner before her own property became compromised. Diane Corricelli added that she was concerned about winter activity at the campground and questioned if there were long term residents. She added that the wind frequently carried the campfire smell upwind, which forced

QUIRK, cont.

her to close her windows. Diane Corricelli then asked what was required on the site for fire water supply as she had been told that if she subdivided her land she would be required to install a fire cistern. She asked if abutters were allowed on the applicant’s site walk and lastly, if the Conservation Commission would be notified of the scheduled site walk. The Chairman replied that the Conservation Commission would receive notification of the site walk and that all of her concerns were items that would typically be considered before the Board voted on the application.

Pat Monbouquette asked where Cochran Hill Road was located on the plans. Christine Quirk located the road and also pointed out where Pat Monbouquette’s house abutted the other

40-acre parcel she owned and not the campground. Diane Corricelli stated that she was an abutter to the campground. Mark Moser clarified that Patricia Monbouquette of Lot #12 did not abut the campground and Diane Corricelli of Lot #6 did.

David Smith asked what the difference was between an abutter versus a lot owner who lived nearby. The Chairman replied that abutters received legal notice of hearings for an applicant, otherwise each party’s input was equally considered.

Abutter, Dawn Carey stated that she favored the campground, had been an abutter for 14 years and had never experienced any problems. She thought that a campground was better for wildlife than a strip mall. Diane Corricelli wanted to point out that she did experience noise and smoke due to her location on the hill. The Chairman noted that she chose to move near a campground. Diane Corricelli replied that she bought property with a 36 acre buffer zone between herself and the campground with the intent of creating a wildlife refuge. The Chairman pointed out that Zoning Regulations required a 200 foot buffer zone between a campsite and abutting property to quell smoke and noise. Diane Corricelli replied that she wished that concept worked but smoke rose high above trees. Jacob Gray commented that the noise level from concerts at the campground lasted late into the evening hours. The Chairman replied that he did not believe concerts were being held at the campground and was fairly certain they originated at a different location.

Patricia Monbouquette asked how the campsites were situated as she had recently been to a campground in Maine whose layout she admired. Christine Quirk replied that the campsites were fairly spread out and this afforded the campground an upgraded classification. Patricia Monbouquette asked the acreage amount of the campground. Christine Quirk replied that the campground was 125 acres, with 40 to 50 acres being used for campsites and they also owned 40 acres of private land that was separate from the campground. Patricia Monbouquette asked if a restroom would service the proposed campsites and Christine Quirk replied that the new campsites would have sewers which eliminated the need to construct a restroom nearby.

David Smith asked how many campsites were allowed presently on the site and were there restrictions on the number of sites within a certain area. The Chairman said there were no such limits to the number of campsites currently. Mark Moser, PE, noted that the only restriction would be within the 200 foot buffer and in accordance with gallons per day of sewerage allowed on the land per the State of NH. The Chairman surmised that a limit could be imposed at some point based on that stipulation.

QUIRK, cont.

Jacob Gray asked where the fire fighting water supply was located. The Chairman replied that the applicant had voluntarily installed a fire cistern on the property. Christine Quirk added that a fire hydrant was connected to the indoor pool which held 20,000 gallons of water. She went on to add that there were also three other water storage tanks which held 7,000, 3,000 and 1,500 gallons of water respectively. Diane Corricelli asked where the pool was located in relation to the proposed 40 campsites. Christine Quirk wished to note that they had voluntarily installed a fire road on the campground property so that fire trucks would be better able to protect the surrounding woods and abutters’ property in case of fire. Jacob Gray asked how water would be accessed on the fire road. The Chairman replied that the hydrant would be

accessed. Mark Moser, PE, stated that the indoor pool and hydrant were located within 700 feet of the proposed campsites. Diane Corricelli thought the pool seemed too far away to be accessible. Gordon Carlstrom pointed out that the 700 foot distance was well within the required 2,000 foot maximum distance required to fire water supply and the hose that would be used for fire fighting was of an acceptable 4 inch width.

David Smith asked how many sites were presently at the campground. Christine Quirk replied there were presently 238 campsites and they were considered to be a small campground versus the 500 to 600 campsites that other campgrounds sustained.

Gordon Carlstrom stated that there was still an outstanding question as to whether the applicant would allow non-Planning Board members on the site walk and Christine Quirk said she did not wish to do so. The Chairman clarified that the site walk would be limited to members of the Planning Board and Conservation Commission.

Mark Moser, PE, asked how much staking would be required for the centerline of the road which he added was 95% cut. The Chairman replied that the stakes did not need to be placed too closely together but there should be visibility from one to the next.

Patricia Monbouquette asked if abutters had any jurisdiction over campers crossing into her private property. The Chairman replied that this qualified as trespassing and the campground or ultimately the police department should be notified when this occurred. Patricia Monbouquette wondered if the applicant could advise campers and stressed that she enjoyed the sounds of the campground but felt her privacy was compromised when campers walked through her property. The Chairman replied that campers should not be in the area of Ms. Monbouquette’s property as it was a considerable distance from the campground and because of the 200 foot buffer zone around the campground. He added that she should discuss this issue with the owners of the campground.

Diane Corricelli asked if the Chairman had camped at the campground. The Chairman replied that he had recently visited a campground in another town which did not compare to the upgraded status of the applicant’s site. He noted that The Friendly Beaver Campground had gone through the channels of State Subdivision Approval and invested a lot in the campground to make upgrades as they were needed. Diane Corricelli asked if the Chairman had ever camped at the applicant’s campground. The Chairman replied that he had not because he already lived in the woods and experienced the sounds and smells of country living.

QUIRK, cont.

Dawn Carey stated that she often visited the Friendly Beaver Campground and found it to be a well-run family oriented business. The Chairman added that he had been to several site walks on the campground and never saw many campers. Christine Quirk agreed that many campers used the sites as a get-away but were not there for long periods of time. Diane Corricelli asked who monitored the campground for long term residents. The Chairman replied that the Town did this and James Nordstrom added that was a code enforcement issue. Gordon Carlstrom noted that in the past, campers who had exceeded their time allowed had been asked to leave the campground by the Town or the campground owners. Diane Corricelli stated she had spoken to someone who had been allowed to stay at the applicant’s campground all winter.

James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Thomas and Christine Quirk,

Major Subdivision and Site Plan, 40 camp sites, Location: Cochran Hill Road, Tax

Map/Lot #7/1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to September 28, 2004, at 7:45

p.m. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

MIDDLE BRANCH PRODUCE

NOONAN, ROGER (OWNER)

Compliance Hearing

NRSPR/Amendment to Site Plan

Location: Colburn Road

Tax Map/Lot #1/50

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant, Roger Noonan and an abutter, Ira Gray.

Travis Daniels recused himself from the proceedings as he was an abutter to the applicant.

The Chairman stated that the hours of operation for the applicant’s proposed farm stand were being amended to 9:00 a.m. to dusk year round.

James Nordstrom asked if the applicant owned the yellow Labrador he recently noticed on the property. Roger Noonan said he did and that the dog served as a watch dog because he had experienced vandalism and theft of an irrigation system on his property last year.

The Chairman stated that the amendment to the hours was noted on the plans and it should be also be noted that the applicant was found to be in compliance.

Abutter, Ira Gray asked for background information on the applicant’s compliance hearing and amendment to his site plan. The Chairman replied that the applicant had applied for and was approved to operate a farm stand on his property.

James Nordstrom MOVED to amend the hours of operation to 9:00 to dusk, year-round

and to confirm that Roger Noonan has complied with the conditions subsequent to the

approval of the site plan to operate a farm stand on Colburn Road, Tax Map/Lot #1/50,

MIDDLE BRANCH PRODUCE, CONT.

and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the

Building Department. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

At 9:30 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.

13-15 HOPKINS ROAD, INC. (APPLICANT) Adjourned from 08/10/04

SWIEZYNSKI, JOSEPH (OWNER)

Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/9 Lots

Location: Hopkins and Salisbury Roads

Tax Map/Lot #13/15

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Andrew Prolman, Esq., and the applicant Joseph Swiezynski. An abutter present was Lynn Wawrzyniak.

Attorney Prolman thanked the Board for scheduling them within a two week time frame from their prior meeting with the Board. He noted that at the prior meeting the applicant was waiting for the Town Engineer’s review which had since been provided to the applicant in a letter dated August 12, 2004, from Rene LeBranche of Dufresne-Henry, Inc. Andy Prolman, Esq., noted that the Town engineer’s review dealt with minor engineering additions to the plan. He added that the bond amount was increased from the submitted amount of $72,000.00 to $78,026.03 which was acceptable to the applicant.

Attorney Prolman stated he had spoken with Bill Drescher, Esq., that morning who said the legal documents all seem satisfactory with the exception that the road deed and one easement deed was missing the notation of the Selectmen’s acceptance of conveyance to the Town which Andrew Prolman, Esq., said he had neglected to include.

Andrew Prolman, Esq., stated that he had spoken with Bob Todd, LLS, who went over Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s review items and concluded that they could be easily addressed by Sanford Engineering and added to the site plan. He added that with the information provided the applicant hoped to obtain conditional approval at tonight’s hearing.

James Nordstrom questioned a portion of the Town engineer’s letter to the applicant that asked for written comments by the Fire Wards regarding the cistern for the site. He said that he was under the impression sprinklers were to be used in lieu of a cistern. The Chairman thought the same. Andrew Prolman, Esq., replied that the plan had been notated for sprinklers and he believed he had also drafted a covenant to that effect as well.

James Nordstrom stated the bond estimate form did not appear complete. The Planning Board Assistant stated they had received a revised form today and showed it to James Nordstrom. James Nordstrom then asked what the exact bond amount was. The Planning Board Assistant replied it was $78,026.03.

James Nordstrom asked if an estimate for inspection costs was received from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., as it was usually included in their review letter. The Planning Board Assistant stated

13-15 HOPKINS ROAD, INC., cont.

they were still waiting for that estimate amount. Andrew Prolman, Esq., added that he had spoken with the Coordinator today who said they were still waiting for the inspection estimate

figure from Rene LaBranche of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., however, it should not delay the application as that amount was lately being handled as a separate cost to the applicant outside of the bond. The Chairman said that was understandable as the engineer would not do inspections until they were paid, therefore, the estimate would be considered a “to be determined” value. James Nordstrom wanted the applicant to be aware that if a conditional approval was based on an open-ended figure that figure could theoretically be increased to any amount. Andrew Prolman, Esq., replied that he understood the implication but was not concerned as the application dealt with a flat road, 600 feet in length, which should not have any issues to allow that prospect.

Abutter, Lynn Wawrzyniak asked what the next step was in the application if conditional approval was granted. The Chairman replied that the applicant would be required to complete his legal work for the application, post bonds and attend a pre-construction meeting and could then begin with the construction of the project.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan of 13-15 Hopkins Road, LLC, Major Subdivision, 9 Lots, Tax Map/Lot #13/15, Hopkins and Salisbury Roads, 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.

2. Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD.

3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F.

4. Receipt of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s estimate for construction monitoring inspections.

5. Receipt of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s final approval of the road plans and profiles.

6. Submission of the language of the form of the security for review and approval by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.

7. Submission of the security, in the amount of $78,026.03 and in a form acceptable to the Planning Board and the applicant, for the construction of Kettle Lane as shown on the approved plans and profiles.

8. Submission of the estimated construction inspection fees regarding the construction of Kettle Lane, in an amount to be determined at a later date by Dufresne-Henry, Inc. A mandatory pre-construction meeting is required to be held with the developer/agent, road contractor, Town’s Road Agent, and representatives of the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen, as well as the Town’s consulting engineer, prior to the start of the road construction project.

9. Approval of the language of the Declaration of Use Covenants and Restrictions regarding the installation of sprinkler systems in each house in the subdivision and deed language that would incorporate that requirement, by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.

13-15 HOPKINS ROAD, INC., cont.

10. Submission of executed Declaration of Use Covenants and Restrictions regarding sprinkler systems. The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be bourne by the applicant.

11. Approval of the language of the Kettle Hole Protection Area Easement by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.

12. Submission of executed Kettle Hole Protection Area Easement. The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.

13. Approval of the language of the Salisbury Road Easement by Town Counsel, the cost

of which shall be borne by the applicant.

14. Submission of executed Salisbury Road Easement. The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.

15. Approval of the language of the Drainage and Slope Easement by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.

16. Submission of executed Drainage and Slope Easement. The deed shall be held in escrow until compliance to the conditions subsequent is confirmed at which time the cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.

17. Approval of the language of the Warranty Deed by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.

18. Submission of executed Warranty Deed. The deed shall be held in escrow until compliance to the conditions subsequent is confirmed at which time the cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.

19. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.

20. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).

21. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.

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.

CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:

1. Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved subdivision.

2. Kettle Lane is to be constructed in accordance with the Application for Inspection and in accordance with the approved plans and profiles. After the base (binder) course of pavement is approved by the Road Agent/town’s engineer, the developer will allow the road to set over one winter, during which time the developer will be liable for the road, including, but not limited to, winter maintenance thereof. The wearing (finish)

13-15 HOPKINS ROAD, INC., cont.

3. course of pavement shall be applied no later than one (1) year from the date of application of the binder course. The Application for Inspection must be turned into the Planning Department after the road is 100% complete, in order to initiate final inspection and acceptance of the road, and the release of the security for same after a compliance inspection and hearing is held.

4. Driveway locations on Kettle Lane shall be approved at sub-grade and driveways shall be installed through binder to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town engineer and in conformance with the Application for Inspection and approved driveway

and approved driveway permits.

5. Per Subdivision Regulations Section V-S, 1, J, As-Built plans showing the final location of any slope/drainage easement areas, and driveways, and the final road construction details, in the form of three paper print copies and one electronic file, certified by the applicant’s engineer that the layout of the line and grade of all public improvements as in accordance with the approved construction plans of the subdivision, shall be submitted for review by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy within the subdivision.

6. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F.

7. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD.

8. The applicant shall install road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) to the satisfaction of the Road Agent.

9. Driveway permits must be approved for completed acceptable installation by the Road Agent and Planning Board prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy (CO’s) for the related lots.

10. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until the sprinkler systems are installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee and the driveways are installed and approved by the Road Agent and the Planning Board and the road is installed through binder pavement and the road identification sign(s) and stop signs(s) are installed to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town’s engineer and any guard rails are installed to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town’s engineer and the As-Built plans have been reviewed and approved by the town’s engineer.

11. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD.

The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be November 1, 2006, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing to be held on the application. Prior to the acceptance of the completed road by the Town, an acceptable two year maintenance bond must be submitted by the applicant for the road in the amount of 10% of the performance bond value.

Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

13-15 HOPKINS ROAD, INC., cont.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Applications 04-001, 04-002, 04-003, 04-004, 04-005, 04-006, 04-007, 04-008 and 04-009, for proposed driveways, Lot #13/15, 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. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 24, 2004

4. Driveway Permit Application for Donald and Kristine Gagnon, 22 Summit Drive, Tax Map/Lot #11/88, for proposed relocation of existing driveway, for the Board’s action.

(Board to drive by prior to meeting)

James Nordstrom stated that it appeared the applicant was trying to improve the access for the existing driveway and asked Don Gagnon for clarification. Don Gagnon replied that he wanted to create an alternate parking area which would not lead up to the house but serve as a retaining area off to the side of the existing driveway for cars or other material that could be placed out of the way of that portion of driveway that did provide access to the house. James Nordstrom noted that the proposed area seemed to have a steep grade but was a better grade than the existing driveway.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application 04-064, for proposed driveway, Lot #11/88, 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. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

16. A copy of a letter dated August 20, 2004, from Christine Quirk, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator and to the Board, re: proposed addition to the adult recreation hall at the Friendly Beaver Campground was distributed for the Board’s discussion.

The Planning Board Assistant stated that the Coordinator questioned whether an addition could be made to a structure whose site plan was already recorded and if the Board might consider an amendment to that site plan. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the setback requirements to the next lot were acceptable. Christine Quirk replied they were. James Nordstrom asked if such

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

an amendment warranted a public hearing. The Planning Board Assistant thought that it would.

The Chairman asked if the recreation hall was a new building and Christine Quirk replied it was not. Gordon Carlstrom thought that a public hearing should be held as it had been required for a

previous applicant with a similar case. The Chairman noted that Christine Quirk’s scenario differed as the recreation hall was already functional. Christine Quirk added that the recreation hall had always had a shed located nearby which had since been removed with the intent of attaching a more permanent storage area to the hall. Gordon Carlstrom concluded that because the shed was a preexisting condition the proposed addition would be acceptable. The Chairman asked if there was any intent for increased usage or capacity and Christine Quirk said there was not. She added that the addition would provide kitchen storage for the recreation hall and also separate the heating system from the chlorinators for the pool.

James Nordstrom thought that an amendment to the site plan could then be handled

administratively and the Board gave their consensus.

1. The minutes of July 27^th, 2004, and August 10^th, 2004, were distributed for approval at the meeting of September 14, 2004, with or without changes.

2. Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Swanson Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-29, for proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.

(Board to drive by prior to meeting)

Because no Planning Board members were able to view the driveway prior to tonight’s meeting it was determined that the above item would be addressed at the meeting of September 14, 2004.

3. Driveway Permit Application for Seff Enterprises & Holdings, LLC, Foxberry Drive, Tax Map/Lot #8/84-27, 8/84-28, 8/84-29, 8/84-30, 8/84-31, 8/84-39, 8/84-40, 8/84-41, 8/84- 42, for proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.

(Board to drive by prior to meeting)

Gordon Carlstrom stated that the name of Stanhope Heights Road, which appeared on the applications, was not an approved road name by the Selectmen. He added that Foxberry Drive was the name that had been approved. The Chairman stated that the driveway permits should be returned to Seff Enterprises & Holdings, LLC to correct the road name on the applications. James Nordstrom stated he was curious to know what road name was listed on the recorded plans.

The Planning Board Assistant retrieved the current recorded plans, which bore the road name of Foxberry Drive. Gordon Carlstrom also noted that John Riendeau, Road Agent, had not approved these driveways. The Planning Board Assistant stated that the Road Agent would be in the following day to approve the driveways if the Board approved them tonight. Gordon Carlstrom said the driveway permit applications should not be approved because Seff Enterprises

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

& Holdings, LLC, should have the correct road name on the driveway permit application and plans. James Nordstrom stated it should be pointed out to Seff Enterprises & Holdings, LLC,

that the Planning Board attempted to act on the applications but it was noted that applications on file did not accurately reflect the information on the recorded plans. The Chairman added that a hand amendment would not be acceptable and the driveway applications should be correctly filled out.

5. Driveway Permit Application for Indian Falls, LLC, McCurdy Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/89-15, for proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.

(Board to drive by prior to meeting)

James Nordstrom stated that he viewed the driveway and did not foresee any issues. Don

Duhaime agreed, although, he thought some ledge in the area of the entrance might need to be built up to meet grade requirements.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Applications 04-070, for proposed driveway, Lot #12/89-15, 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 driveway after construction will be inspected by the Board or its designee for compliance. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

6. A copy of a letter dated August 15, 2004, from Bill Drescher, Esq., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Document Review-Indian Falls, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

The Planning Board Assistant stated that the letter of credit had been received and appeared in order.

Gordon Carlstrom asked if the document review pertained to four separate lots of the subdivision with four separate easements and a foot path. The Planning Board Assistant thought that Bill Drescher, Esq., was suggesting a Declaration of Covenants be applied to enforce restrictions on the property as a whole rather than for the individual lots. Gordon Carlstrom agreed and added that Town Counsel noted it was important to define the foot path’s location for future lot owners’ awareness. Don Duhaime stated there was no access to the footpath from Bedford Road. Gordon Carlstrom recalled that the other side of Bedford Road had a well defined location of its foot path being 30 or 50 feet from the defined shoreline of the pond. James Nordstrom thought the easement was intended as a buffer to the wetlands or a

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

conservation easement. The Chairman asked which scenario the Board preferred and noted that Town Counsel thought a declaration of Covenants was more appropriate. James Nordstrom

questioned if they were addressing easement concerns on the older Indian Falls Subdivision or the newer version. Don Duhaime stated that the previous owners of the subdivision placed the conservation easements on the plan in the 1990’s. Gordon Carlstrom said that if a foot path was on the site at that time it should still be there. Don Duhaime saw no way the foot path could be accessed from Bedford Road due to wetlands. James Nordstrom thought access could be gained through the public 50 foot right-of-way which the easement area abutted, thus extending the conservation easement to the west. He added that he did not think a foot path was intended by the applicant. Gordon Carlstrom agreed the intention of foot path was the issue. The Planning Board Assistant said she would research this question.

The Chairman asked if the Board preferred a Declaration of Covenants as Town Counsel suggested or a Conservation Easement for the lots. James Nordstrom thought that the Board

should follow Town Counsel’s advice as the Town would hold the covenant and have authority without liability.

7. A copy of a memorandum dated August 17, 2004, from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Planning Board Members, Re: Conservation Easement, Tax Map/Lot

#12/89, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

The discussion for the above item was covered in Miscellaneous Business Item #6.

8. A copy of a letter dated August 17, 2004, from Bill Drescher, Esq., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Document Review-Freeman Nadolny, Tax Map/Lot #3/54, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

James Nordstrom stated the letter noted several inconsistencies between the legal description of the deeds and the subdivision plan. Gordon Carlstrom asked who had prepared the plan and James Nordstrom believed it was Mike Dahlberg. The Planning Board Assistant stated that in these situations a summary of items was sent to the applicant for correction. She added that the Coordinator had done this and Mike Dahlberg had faxed the Planning Department late in the day, therefore, some minor corrections may have already been made. James noted the legal description and missing subdivision clause were major items that needed correction as well.

9. A copy of the minutes from the Master Plan committee meeting of August 11, 2004, was distributed for the Board’s information.

10. Notice of receipt, Re: Regional Transportation Plan (Revised July 2004) and Transportation Improvement Program FY 2005-FY 2007 from the SNHPC, for the Board’s information. (Report available for review in Planning Department)

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

11. Daily road inspection reports dated July 19^th, July 20^th, July 22^nd, July 23^rd, July

26^th, and July 27^th, July 28^th, July 29^th, and July 30^th, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Highland Hills, were distributed for the Board’s information.

12. Daily road inspection reports dated July 19^th, July 20^th, July 21^st, July 22^nd, July

26^th, and July 27^th, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Forest View, were distributed for the Board’s information.

Gordon Carlstrom noted these inspections did not go very well.

13. Daily road inspection reports dated July 19^th, July 21^st, July 22^nd, July 23^rd, July

29^th, and July 30^th, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Waldorf Estates, were distributed for the Board’s information.

Gordon Carlstrom noted these inspections were satisfactory but a compaction test failed.

14. Read File: Notice of the 29^th Annual 2004 Municipal Law Lecture Series.

The Planning Board Assistant asked members of the Board to inform her if they wished to attend what dates they preferred. She said the dates were Wednesday evenings of October 13^th, 20^th and 27^th. The Chairman asked for a copy of the notice. He added that Brent Armstrong sometimes attended.

15. Schedule Steep Slopes Committee presentation of draft Steep Slopes Conservation District Ordinance, 6:30 p.m., September 14, 2004. (Prior to regular Planning Board meeting.)

The Board wished to reschedule this presentation to September 28, 2004, at 6:30 p.m.

17. Discussion re: joint hearings with the Zoning Board of Adjustment for Jim and Claire Dodge, New Boston Self Storage Expansion. Next ZBA meeting is September 21, 2004.

James Nordstrom stated he did not think there was room for expansion at the storage facility and asked if fill would be required. The Chairman thought that the elevation was being dropped to enable the expansion to line up with the existing two structures which measured 30’ by 121’. James Nordstrom said the grade appeared the same as the other areas of the plan. He added that the Dodges would need to apply for a special exception and the Planning Board meeting schedule would need to be changed in facilitate a public hearing. The Planning Board Assistant asked if the schedule conflict could be solved if the ZBA attended a Planning Board meeting. The Chairman thought this was a good idea as the ZBA’s last meeting did not take place due to absentees. The Planning Board Assistant said she would look into this option.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

18. Discussion re: driveway permit application for Steve and Marie Danielson, 3 Carriage Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/93-32.

The Planning Board Assistant explained that the Danielsons wanted to construct a circular driveway on their property, however, the required 200 foot distance between curb cuts would not be possible. She added that the next lot up from the Danielsons had a circular driveway but the lot owners had not obtained a permit to construct it. The Planning Board Assistant said the Board could deny the Danielson’s permit and notify the other lot owners of their error or allow the Danielsons a permit and send the other lot owners a post construction permit? Gordon Carlstrom thought that because the curb cut requirement could not be met a letter of denial should be sent to the Danielsons.

The Planning Board Assistant stated that the Coordinator wanted to know if the Board wanted the allowance of circular driveways in the Driveway Regulations. James Nordstrom was

agreeable as long as curb cuts complied. He added that the Danielson’s permit should be denied and a letter should be sent to the Code Enforcement Officer informing him there may be a non-

compliance issue with an existing circular driveway.

The Planning Board Assistant asked if the Driveway Regulations included the curb cut distance requirement or if it was simply a policy. James Nordstrom thought there was some mention of distance between curb cuts in the regulations but was unsure and noted that could alter the Danielson situation. Gordon Carlstrom thought that if the curb cut distance was only a policy it should still be adhered to. The Chairman added that the existing circular driveway near the Danielsons did not have two entrances to the road and was, therefore, in violation of its permit. He added that the lot owner would need to amend his plan of remove his circular driveway.

The Planning Board Assistant said she would speak with the Coordinator regarding the addition of curb cut widths to the Driveway Regulations and asked if circular driveways should be mentioned as well. Gordon Carlstrom thought inclusion of the 200 foot curb cut widths would suffice. James Nordstrom added this would not disallow circular driveways as long as the curb cut requirement was met.

At 10:45 p.m., James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne O’Brien

Recording Clerk Minutes Approved: