New Boston, NH - Planning Board Minutes 12/14/04

Planning Board Minutes 12/14/04

TOWN OF NEW BOSTON

NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD

Minutes of 2004 Meetings

December 14, 2004

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members James Nordstrom, Travis Daniels, Bob Furey; ex-officio Dave Woodbury; and, alternate Don Duhaime. Also present were Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown, Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien and Shannon Silver of the Building Department.

Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Rick Martin, Bob Todd, LLS, Jay Marden, Roc Larochelle, Willard Dodge, Brandy Mitroff, Pat Golding, Kim Burkhamer, Kim DiPietro, Mark Anderson, Betsy Lake, Melissa Philippy, Gene Young, Kim Houghton, Tom Clapp, John Riendeau, David & M.S. Livingston, Jackie Storro, Suzanne Hawley, Jaebok & Susan Young, Ray & Suzanne Lemire, Brandy & Shawn McClure, Diane Manson, Stephanie Ridley, Frank and Dottie Fillmore, Earl Sanford, LLS, Betsy Dodge, Mike Dahlberg, Todd Connors, PE, Paul Morin, Pete and Sherry Maloney and Susan Woodard.

RIGHT WAY BUILDERS Adjourned from 11/23/04

by Rick Martin

Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing/Design Review

Lot Line Adjustment/Major Subdivision/ 23 Lots

Location: Beard Road

Tax Map/Lot # 5/52 & 5/50

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, and Rick Martin, President of Right Way Builders. Abutters and interested parties present were Jay Marden, Roc Larochelle, Willard Dodge, Brandy Mitroff, Paul Golding, Kim Burkhamer, Kim DiPietro, Mark Anderson, Betsy Lake, Melissa Philippy and Gene Young.

The Chairman asked if the applicant was aware of the recently posted Zoning Ordinance that would go to the Town vote in March, 2005. Rick Martin replied that he was. Bob Todd, LLS’s, presentation outline is as follows:

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

FOR CONDOMINIUM SITE PLAN APPLICATION OF RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC. FOR RESIDENTIAL RETIREMENT COMMUNITY

MAP 5, LOTS 50, 52, & 52-1

December 14, 2004 Planning Board Meeting

Design Review Hearing (continued from November 23, 2004)

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Robert Todd presenting on behalf of applicants; Right Way Builders and Garretson

1.2 Proposal involves three tax parcels: 52 and 50 for subdivision, lot 52-1 for merger.

1.3 Last meeting we presented a conceptual condominium site plan showing 42 single-family units

without lot lines. Because that proposal introduced inquiry regarding application of the zoning ordinance,

RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, cont.

the applicant has opted to move on in the direction of a condex development managed as a retirement community for 55 year olds.

1.4 In addition, the lot line adjustment relative to Lot

51 owned by Mr. and Mrs. Towne has been stripped from

this application and it now stands behind a separate

application to expedite that objective.

1.5 A new road design has been prepared for review and it

is submitted this evening.

1.6 Reports completed are also submitted; a Traffic Study

by Laurie Rauseo and a Fiscal Impact Analysis by

Cutler Brown, the Environmental Assessment is being

prepared.

1.7 A preliminary meeting was held with the Fire Wards to

brief them on the project objectives.

1.8 A meeting has been scheduled with the Conservation

Commission on January 6, 2005 for discussing options for disposition of the open space portions of the project.

2. Community Context

2.1(See map compiled from tax map sheets 5 and 8

2.2 Located on south side of Beard Road, entrance to project is 1.3 miles from the NBFD.

2.3 Entrance to project is 900 feet from Route 77.

2.4 Bounded on south by Hills. County 4H Foundation, on north by low density residential and agricultural uses. The Railroad trail and protected river corridor also border this project on the south.

3. Project Objective

3.1 The applicant appreciates the guidance from the

Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Fire Wards,

Police Department, and the Selectmen in designing a

Safe and attractive development that will be an asset

to the town with:

3.11 42 new condominium dwelling units

in two-family structures, each with

2 bedrooms(existing lot 52-1, previously

approved, is to be merged with the

remainder of lot 52);

3.12 dwelling units to have an attached 2 car

garage;

3.13 one structure for use as a “community”

RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, cont.

building for social and business

activities, may have attached residence

for facility manager;

3.14 The condex dwelling structures to be served

by common wells and septic systems;

3.15 The declaration may state that common areas

may be used for trail development and for

long-term forest growth with a forest

management plan.

3.16 The project is to be a residential

retirement community for persons 55 years

old and older consistent with the Fair

Housing Act of 1995, 24 CFR Part 100.

4. Land characteristics

4.1 Topography

4.11 mapped from data gathered on the ground and by

aerial survey methods with 5’ interval contour

lines;

4.12 slope analysis shows = 25% areas comprising

16.34 acres and = 15% and = 25% comprising

35.52 acres (slopes delineated on the plan are as

defined in proposed zoning change);

4.13 76.26 acres remain with slope less than 15%;

4.2 Soils:

4.21 mapped on site in accordance with Site Specific

Soil Mapping standards by Peter Schauer, CSS;

4.22 forty test pits have been interpreted and

percolation tests have been conducted, tests

shallowest to bedrock (37” to 48”) found on

northwest part of lot 50, other tests five

feet or deeper overall;

4.23 percolation tests range from 3 minutes to 20

minutes per inch, averaging 10 minutes per inch;

4.24 about 5 acres of soil in the northwest portion

has group 2 soil (Canton), well drained, deep,

and with no restrictive layer;

4.25 about 5 acres has Pillsbury soil (group 5)

poorly drained, and/or jurisdictional wetland as

defined by NHDES Wetlands Bureau admin. Rule

301.01.

4.26 the remainder of the property has Marlow and

Peru soils (Group 3) moderately well drained

RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, cont.

and/or with a restrictive layer;

4.27 ESHWT depth ranges from 19” to 60” with an

average depth of 32 inches;

4.28 free water was encountered in four test pits,

at depths of 26”, 42”, 42”, and 60”;

4.29 jurisdictional wetlands comprise 6.76 ac.

5. Conceptual Plan Overview

5.1 Mangagement

5.11 services by the management company may

include snow removal from common driveways

and parking areas;

5.12 additional services on landscaping and turf;

5.13 transportation services for residents;

5.14 shopping and errand services;

5.15 the CFR Part 100 lists other services

that may be part of the retirement community

management function.

5.2 Lot density was calculated by using the

Cluster Residential Development formula in the

zoning ordinance;

5.21 gross tract area = 128.12 acres;

5.22 deduction for roads and utilities (.15 X

128.12) = 19.22 acres;

5.23 deduction for wetlands = 6.76 acres;

5.24 deduction for very steep slopes = 16.34

acres;

5.25 128.12 – 19.22 – 16.34 – 6.76 = 85.80 acres

net developable area;

5.26 85.80 acres/2 acres = 42.90 dwelling units

(rounded to 43 dwelling units);

5.27 the lots that can be created under

conventional lot sizing is 21 on which

2 attached dwelling units can be placed

resulting in 42 dwelling units. .

5.3 the applicant has an agreement with Mr. and Mrs.

Towne to acquire 1.5 acres of lot 51 so as to avoid wetlands in roadway routing (see separate application);

5.4 the applicant intends to build, maintain, and operate this project;

6.0 Road System/Driveways

6.1 a traffic study has been commissioned and presented

RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, cont.

for Planning Board review (65% ADT toward west, 75%

ADT toward west in winter);

6.2 the project will involve about 4650 feet of new road

construction running from Beard Road at the west

end of the project to he Beard Road entry at the

east end of the project (850 feet of this road is proposed to be constructed to a width 16 feet and to be a one way in traffic routing to the driveway of lot 50-19);

6.3 a cul-de-sac road 960 feet long (measured to the

center of the cul-de-sac) serves the lots in the east-central portion of the project;

6.4 the roads avoid all wetland impacts and all slopes

over 25%, and avoid 15% slopes to the extent

possible (660 feet of 15% slope will be crossed

and a conditional use permit must be obtained);

7.0 utilities serving the development will be underground

within the limits of the town road right of way.

8.0 fiscal impact analysis report submitted herewith;

the summary shows that each unit is estimated to produce

an annual net income of $5665 to general town fund. $158,628 will be contributed each year to the school district fund.

Bob Todd, LLS, added that there would be a one time current use change tax of approximately $210K. He stated that the applicant wished to proceed with Site Specific and State Subdivision Approval while the road design for the plan was in progress. Rick Martin stated he would like to be heard by the Board in one month’s time when all necessary permits were in. Dave Woodbury asked if the plan submitted conformed to the cluster concept. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the design conformed to a standard two acre conventional subdivision.

Dave Woodbury then asked if each lot would have one duplex that shared a well and septic system. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was correct. Rick Martin agreed and added that the well and septic system design was based on a four bedroom duplex. Dave Woodbury then asked if the owners’ deeds would encompass the interior space of each unit and not property that surrounded it. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was correct. Dave Woodbury asked what classification Road B as noted on the plan would retain after the point at which it was no longer a Class V roadway. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that Road B would still be considered a Class V highway according to AASHTO rural road or low volume traffic geometry. Dave Woodbury asked what precedent was established by the Town that allowed the acceptance of a Class V road built to such a lesser standard. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that to his knowledge there was no

precedent nor had a one way road of that standard been proposed. Dave Woodbury noted that

RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, cont.

the Fire Wards had not yet forwarded their review of the applicant’s road design. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was correct and stated the Fire Wards were still in the process of considering the design of Road B. He added that the purpose of Road B was two-fold: 1. There was limited space to build a 22’ (foot) roadway with shoulders and grading to Town specifications and 2. To reduce or minimize traffic on Beard Road from the project entrance to Route 77. Don Duhaime stated that theoretically the applicant’s road design was still a cul-de-sac, which exceeded the Town’s specifications for cul-de-sac length. The Chairman asked what would be needed to make Road B a Class V road. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that Road B could be a Class V road if the Selectmen agreed to accept a paved 16’ wide road with shoulders less than 8% that served as a one way entrance into the proposed subdivision. Dave Woodbury asked how Road B could be made into a standard Class V road constructed to Town specifications. Bob Todd, LLS, replied it would be possible to do so except for one portion of the road where the grade would need to extend 50’ in each direction, which would result in an unattractive landscape. Dave Woodbury asked if John Riendeau, Road Agent, had been contacted for his input as he would be responsible for maintenance of a Class V road in the Town. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the Fire Wards had indicated they would like to see the proposal on the final road design and subsequently hold a joint meeting with the Road Agent and Police Department which would result in a formal recommendation to the Board. Brian Dorwart stated that the Road Committee would like the opportunity to review the applicant’s road design plans and its coinciding Traffic Study. He added that he thought the Traffic Study calculation that found 65% of the subdivision traffic would turn left to Route 77 to be questionable and wondered what distance was applied and if an assessment of road surfaces for traffic was factored. Bob Todd, LLS, stated he was under the impression that the Fire Wards would include the Road Committee in their road review process but added that copies of the plan and its Traffic Study were available. Brian Dorwart asked the Chairman how the Road Committee could procedurally acquire a copy of the applicant’s road design plans. The Planning Assistant stated she could send a copy directly to the Road Committee. The Chairman stated that was his preference so that any misplacement of the plans could be avoided. Brian Dorwart requested that Roc Larochelle of the Road Committee receive the copy(s) of the plan.

Brandy Mitroff asked how children could be specifically excluded from a 55 and older community as the applicant proposed when many individuals in that age group had children of high school age. She noted that such a scenario could then alter the plan’s Fiscal Study calculations. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the 150 page “24 CFR Part 100” was available online and contained many exceptions to the Fair Housing Act of 1995. He noted that according to the Act, 80% of such a project was required to be sold to individuals 55 years and older and units could not be sold to people with children under 18 years old. Brandy Mitroff asked if Rick Martin was willing to state as in previous hearings that the regulations of the proposed project would specify no children were allowed to live on the premises. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the issue was not a simple one as many exceptions applied. He added that it was important to realize that a single family development would have a greater negative impact to the Town than what the applicant proposed. Brandy Mitroff stated that she wanted to raise the point that a Fiscal

RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, cont.

Study calculated on the basis of no children would change dramatically if such exceptions occurred. She noted in the same light that because Beard Road was listed by the Town as one that could be paved in the future, that would also dramatically change the Traffic Study calculations. She asked if the potential for paving all of Beard Road had been factored into the Traffic Study. Rick Martin replied that it had not and that the Traffic Study could be based only on current factors. The Chairman stated that in research he had done into 55 and older communities that classification was considered to be a target rather than a rule and that retirement communities were not as apt to attract families with young children because of that classification. Roc Larochelle asked if any documentation precluded that the applicant’s subdivision could not be changed in the future from a retirement community to typical residential dwellings. Rick Martin replied that guidelines prepared by his attorney in the form of Covenants assured that the project would remain a 55 and older community. Bob Todd, LLS, added that such stipulations would be part of the Association By-Laws and referenced similar projects such as Medford Farms and Glenn Falls Village of Goffstown, New Hampshire which had a positive impact on the town.

James Nordstrom stated that at a previous hearing with the applicant slopes of 25% and greater were determined to encompass 38 acres and now they were shown to encompass 16 acres which was a two to one discrepancy. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that the first calculation was a manual one and was done prior to the Town’s publishing of the definition of Steep Slopes. He added that the more recent calculation was done with more precise computer analysis and was based on the refined definition of Steep Slopes. Bob Todd, LLS, further added that the 20 foot change in elevation criteria as noted in the Steep Slopes Ordinance eliminated many contours on the site that had previously fallen into steeper categories.

Dave Woodbury stated that the Board had received a letter from Kim Burkhamer on December 7, 2004, a memo from the Planning Coordinator, and a letter from Kim DiPietro of the Piscataquog Area Trailways that referenced concerns about this plan. He asked if the applicant was prepared to respond to these letters this evening or, if having not received copies, preferred to wait until another time. The Chairman felt that only Kim Dipietro’s letter applied as the other letters referenced items that had since been modified on the plan such as the cluster design, slope changes and missing lot lines. He added that there was a request by Kim DiPietro for a trail easement between Lot #’s 5/52 and 5/51. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he had originally thought that trail to be a Town road but through research discovered it was not. He added that the trail had some serious erosion concerns, which needed attention and thought Mr. Towne could be contacted to possibly reroute a portion of that trail onto his land. Rick Martin stated he would certainly entertain that consideration. Bob Todd, LLS, added that a proposed easement would be granted to the Conservation Commission which would need to be excluded from the general easements and would be discussed at the meeting of January 6, 2005. Willard Dodge, Director of the 4H Foundation, noted that the 4H Foundation had a trail that extended from their property up to Beard Road and had been lenient with its use but was very opposed to the use of four wheelers or trail bikes on their trails and would be directly involved with any

easements that ensued from the applicant’s January 6^th meeting as the end result would affect 4H

RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, cont.

property.

Jay Marden asked what areas of the site were set aside as conservation land. Bob Todd, LLS, noted those areas on the plan. Jay Marden asked why the conservation acreage had decreased from 30 acres to 16. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the acreage was still on the high side and had decreased by only one or two acres due to adjusted calculations for steep slopes. Jay Marden expressed his concern that a north-south wildlife corridor be established and felt that the two lots on the plan which abutted Town property should be considered a part of that corridor.

Mark Anderson asked at what point the developmental impact to the Town would be great enough to warrant a Town vote. He noted that the applicant’s proposal appeared to be a 10 or 12 million dollar project and feared that owners of other properties in Town who did not even have the steep slopes of this project would want to develop also if such a project was allowed. Mark Anderson stated that he realized the applicant’s efforts but did not feel this project would benefit the Town and thought the Board should strongly consider the appropriateness of the applicant’s proposal. Paul Golding added that usually one or two duplexes were built per year in the Town and the applicant proposed 42. He added that traffic would double on Beard Road and the construction of Road B as noted on the plan offered no sight clearance onto Beard Road. Paul Golding stated that he felt this project did not fit the characteristics of its surrounding. Betsy Lake asked what prevented investors from purchasing units of this project and renting them. The Chairman replied that the Covenants of the project and regulations by the proposed homeowners association dictated that this could not be done. Brian Dorwart asked what would result if the project failed and referenced similar occurrences in projects done in Massachusetts. He asked how covenants could be applied in that case. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was an issue to consider. Melissa Phillipy stated that as a resident who lived on Weare Road, she always used Beard Road to access Route 13 to Goffstown which contrasted with the Traffic Study findings that said residents of the subdivision would be more likely to turn left towards Route 77. Roc Larochelle added that if the covenants were to ever dissolve a resulting traffic impact to Beard Road could become a reality as the ownership classification changed. Betsy Lake questioned how the value of nearby residents’ property would be affected by the applicant’s subdivision. The Chairman replied that he had no way to clearly determine that effect. Pat Golding asked if the Board had reviewed the two letters he submitted by realtors who stated that nearby residents’ properties would be devalued if this project was completed. The Chairman replied that the Board had reviewed these letters. Pat Golding added that the Town was on the fringe of going from a non-volunteer fire department to a salary based one and felt the supposed positive fiscal impact of this project would have little effect given the repercussions it would create. The Chairman stated that he did not believe the applicant’s project to be a revenue generator for the Town but rather would not deplete the Town as much as the example of several low income four bedroom homes. Jay Marden referenced the Juniper Hill example of 200 homes and thought the Board should consider, as did the town of Milford, New Hampshire, a moratorium on house lots and building permits, until the Master Plan was completed. Gene Young commented that although he had no issue with the concept of the 55 and older community he felt that traffic flow on Beard road would be greatly impacted. The Chairman agreed that traffic from the proposed

RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, cont.

community would take the path of least resistance and turn right rather than left to Route 77. Rick Martin wished to note that he employed the same individual who did Traffic Studies throughout the Town. The Chairman replied that the Study was based on only one entrance but technically two were present and the result would increase the chance of traffic exiting right onto Beard Road. Rick Martin stated that this was his reasoning behind the one-way exit out of the community.

The Chairman asked the Board’s thoughts on the plan’s road design. James Nordstrom replied that he was not in favor of the current proposal and added that neither a 16’ wide road versus one done according to Town specifications nor a one-way sign would prevent traffic from going in either direction. He added that a secondary limited access way seemed the only solution. The Chairman noted that the addition of a gate at the entrance point would create a 2,000’ cul-de-sac. James Nordstrom agreed. Travis Daniels stated that he agreed with the points raised by James Nordstrom. Dave Woodbury stated that, as a Selectman, he was skeptical of the project in light of the Town’s existing specifications for roads within subdivisions. He added that this road design would require an exception which would in turn set a negative precedent. The Chairman asked Rick Martin if these comments gave him some direction as to how this design would be received as he did not want to waste the applicant’s time and effort going forward with the design of the plan. Rick Martin replied that he understood. The Chairman stated that he was certain the applicant would come before the Board with an alternate plan in the future.

James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Right Way Builders, Rick Martin, Lot Line Adjustment, Major Subdivision, 23 Lots, Location : Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/52 and 5/50, “R-A District, to January 25, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

The Chairman briefly noted that the Board needed to further address the ongoing issue of Driveway Permits and Certificates of Occupancy that were being issued in certain cases prior to the Board’s final approval of a driveway’s construction. He summarized to David Woodbury that certain driveways were not being constructed according to Town specifications but were being signed off by the Road Agent and Building Inspector. The Chairman asked that the Planning Assistant forward documentation regarding the driveways involved to the Board of Selectmen for their information.

HOUGHTON, KATHLEEN

Submission of Application/Public Hearing

Major Subdivision/2 Lots

Location: NH Rte 77 a/k/a Weare Road

Tax Map/Lot # 2/25 & 2/112

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

HOUGHTON, cont.

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, Kathleen Houghton and Chuck Houghton. No abutters were present. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that because the applicant had originally filed the application under the status of a minor subdivision which was now a major subdivision, an additional fee of $180.00 was required by the Planning Department.

Bob Todd, LLS’s, presentation is as follows:

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

Lot Line Adjustment And Subdivision Plat

Lands of Kathleen F. Houghton

Map Sheet 2, Lots 25 & 112

December 14, 2004

1. Introduction

1.1 Robert Todd presenting for owner of Lots 25 and 112,

Kathleen Houghton.

1.2 This property was the subject of a subdivision

application by Charles and Kathleen in August of 2001

that resulted in the creation of lot 112-1.

2. Property Overview

2.1 Kathleen Houghton owns 113.81 acres west of the

junction of Route 77 and Middle Branch Road

comprised of two tax lots, 25 and 112.

2.2 Middle Branch Road runs through Lot 112 leaving

44.87 acres on the south and 26.42 acres on the north.

2.3 Lot 25 contains 42.51 acres and has no road frontage.

2.4 Kathleen Houghton’s house is situated on the portion

lot 112 lying north of Middle Branch Road.

2.5 The Middle Branch of the Piscataquog River runs

through lot 112 and it also runs westerly along the

north side of said river as a “tail” cutting off lot

25 from the Middle Branch Road.

3. Proposal Relative to Lot 25

3.1 Kathleen proposes to deed lot 25 to one of her

stepsons, Lawrence Houghton, a wildlife biologist.

HOUGHTON, cont.

He is said to be interested in building a home on

the land and keeping the remainder it as a forest.

3.2 The lot line adjustment is to put frontage on lot 25

and to make it conform to the definition of a backlot.

However, it is intended that the primary route of

access will not be over the 50 feet wide frontage

strip, but over a 50’ wide easement of access that has

no slopes over 4% and no wetland impacts.

Further, without frontage (easement only) a variance

and recommendation from the planning board would be

required to allow the Selectmen to authorize the

issuance of a building permit (RSA 674:41).

The Chairman noted that it would need to be demonstrated that the driveway could go across the 50 foot access before such an easement could be considered. Bob Todd, LLS, asked if the standard permits would also be required in conjunction with such demonstration and the Chairman said that was correct. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that given that direction the applicant might consider the withdrawal of the current application where Lot #25 was proposed as a part of the proposed subdivision. He explained that the applicant wished to expedite her plans for the sale of a portion of Lot #112 as the outline further describes:

4. Proposal Relative to Lot 112

4.1 The applicant has no plans to change the use of

that portion of lot 112 north of Middle Branch Road

and will continue to use it as her own residential

lot.

4.2 The portion of said lot south of the road is under

agreement to be sold to Dr. Albert LaChance. The

Todd office is contracted to prepare a subdivision

Plan (cluster concept) for presentation to the board.

Bob Todd, LLS, stated he had prepared a list of waivers based on Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s plan review along with an additional five waivers to be presented this evening. The Chairman asked which waivers still applied to the application based on the removal of Lot #25 from the application. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he believed all the waivers applied to the subdivision of Lot #112 and not Lot #25. James Nordstrom noted the large number of waivers listed. Dave Woodbury thought a minority of the waivers were more likely to require further deliberation in

HOUGHTON, cont.

contrast to a larger number that appeared to be of a more standard procedure. The Chairman asked if the application should be more simplified so that only Lot #112 was addressed. Bob Todd, LLS, stated the applicant would voluntarily remove Lot #25 from the application as permits related to its driveway easement would require several months to acquire. James Nordstrom agreed that it would simplify the plan if the aspects of Lot #25 were removed. Dave Woodbury asked if a verbal representation to the amendment of the application should be accepted or if a physically amended application would be required by the Board. James Nordstrom replied that verbal confirmation would not change the status or intent of the application although an amended application would be cleaner. Dave Woodbury added that an amended application would eliminate any future confusion should the plan need to be referenced. The Chairman stated that a site walk should be scheduled and within that time period a withdrawal followed by a revised application should be resubmitted in order for Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to complete the plan review prior to the applicant’s next scheduled hearing. Dave Woodbury felt that waivers numbered 35-38, 42-44 and 51 could be addressed this evening. James Nordstrom asked if Dave Woodbury had any specific issues with waiver #10 on page 1. Dave Woodbury replied that he did not, however, he believed it contained a minor typographical error which should be corrected to read 1” (inch) to 200’ (feet). Bob Todd, LLS, added that he had responded to comments by Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s plan review in the form of five waivers which the Board might wish to review. The Chairman read several of waivers as follows: locations of all buildings and subdivisions within 100’, map of all roads and driveways within 200’, mapping of existing utilities.

Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the five waiver requests as captioned in the letter by Bob Todd, LLS, dated 12/14/04, and waiver #’s 35-38, 42-44, and 51, (excluding #57) as listed on an alternate submission by Bob Todd, LLS. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

The Chairman noted that waiver #57 was not relevant as any new home was now required to install a fire sprinkler system. James Nordstrom agreed that waiver #57 should be excluded. Bob Todd, LLS, also agreed and added that a note on the plan referenced the requirement of sprinkler systems for any new construction.

A site walk was scheduled for January 8, 2005, at 8:00 a.m.

James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Kathleen Houghton, Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: NH Route 77 a/k/a/ Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/25 & 2/112, “R-A” District, to January 25, 2005, at 8:00 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Dave Woodbury asked if a revised application would be expected for the applicant’s next scheduled hearing. The Chairman replied that was correct and noted to Bob Todd, LLS, that the revised application should be a condensed version of the current one with any unnecessary

HOUGHTON, cont.

information and language removed that applied to the lot to be withdrawn. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he would coordinate these changes with the Planning Assistant and understood an additional fee of $180.00 would be required.

Applicant, Kimberley Houghton, asked why she was required to pay an additional fee of $180.00. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that because the application was changed from a minor site plan to a major site plan this fee applied.

STRAUSS, BENJAMIN & RIDLEY, STEPHANIE

Compliance Hearing/ Conditional Use Permits/2 Wetlands Crossings

Location: Beard Road

Tax Map/Lot #5/38

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was applicant, Stephanie Ridley and an abutter, Mark Anderson.

Abutter, Mark Anderson stated that his deed questioned whether the applicant’s proposed driveway should be located across his roadway and that a discrepancy existed between his own deed and that of Tim White’s (former owner of the applicant’s property). He explained that his deed noted an easement was allowed across the roadway for one lot and not two. Mark Anderson added that his real estate attorney informed him that this easement could be used for access if a better access was not available, however, the applicant did have a scenic right-of-way that could be used as such. He added that he had also spoken with abutter, John Young prior to the meeting and explained that he and Mr. Young had not attended prior hearings for this applicant because that believed that one driveway was to cross his easement and Mr. Young’s, however, it now appeared that the driveway was for two lots and not one. Mark Anderson stated that he was unsure if this issue concerned the Board, but felt it should be brought to their attention. He noted that John Young had offered to move his right-of-way further up so that the applicant could gain straight access and avoid a wetland crossing. Mark Anderson further noted that he and Mr. Young were unaware that the reason that offer was declined by the applicant was because the applicant intended to use the easement across his driveway for their access. The Planning Assistant stated that the plan recorded in 1991 showed one easement while the 1994 plan showed two. Dave Woodbury did not think this dispute affected the applicant’s compliance hearing for this evening but might be significant in another venue. James Nordstrom clarified that Mark Anderson’s issue was a boundary dispute where tonight’s hearing concerned the compliance of two wetland crossing and not a driveway approval. Mark Anderson replied that he understood and only wanted to bring the issue to the Board’s attention. Stephanie Ridley stated that she was unaware of this problem and would discuss it further with Mark Anderson.

James Nordstrom stated that he had walked the two crossings as had Bob Furey and both had noted that the silt fence for the second crossings had not been installed per the plan specifications. He added that the plans also called for stabilization by loaming and seeding of the side slope which was not yet done. The Chairman asked if hay had been placed. James

STRAUSS/RIDLEY, cont.

Nordstrom replied that he did not see any hay or mulch placed and although no signs of erosion were present the slope was in an unstabilized condition. The Chairman clarified that with the issues mentioned the site did not meet compliance. Stephanie Ridley stated that she had contacted her contractor in an attempt to correct the stabilization issue and had also been in touch with the State inspector who suggested seeding the slope in the spring to avoid seasonal wash out. James Nordstrom noted that in similar situations it was not uncommon to hold back a portion of the bond money until certain tasks could be completed when the season permitted. The Chairman stated that because neither the silt fence nor the stabilization was done a bond reduction could be considered only when one of those items was completed. Stephanie Ridley asked how she should proceed once the silt fence was installed. The Chairman advised Stephanie Ridley that once the silt fence was in place she should contact the Planning Assistant who would then schedule the applicants on the agenda for the next available Planning Board meeting.

James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the compliance hearing of Benjamin Strauss and Stephanie Ridley, Conditional Use Permits, 2 Wetland Crossings, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/38, “R-A” District, to January 25, 2005, at 8:30 p.m. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Stephanie Ridley then paid the outstanding fee for certified letters in the amount of $56.00 to the Planning Assistant.

FILLMORE, FRANKLIN & DOROTHY

Submission of Application/Public Hearing

Minor Subdivision/2 Lots

Location: Jessica Lane

Tax Map/Lot #14/36 & 36-1

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Earl Sanford, LLS, and the applicants, Frank and Dottie Fillmore.

Earl Sanford, LLS, noted that minor corrections to the plan had been addressed. He described the entrance of Jessica Lane to be located shortly beyond the intersection of Joe English Road and McCurdy Road. He added that the original plan contained a looped portion of new road that would accommodate future lots in a second phase, however, this had been removed from the current plan and the proposal as described in Note #3 was for a lot line adjustment between Lot #’s 14/36 and 14/36-1. Earl Sanford, LLS, explained that on the prior plan Lot #14/36-1, did not have a 50’ strip, but this was now proposed so that it could meet the criteria for a backlot with the existing house. He noted the 50’ access that would have been used by the existing house for a driveway construction which never occurred. Earl Sanford summarized the two aspects of the plan proposal to be: 1. To adjust property lines between Lot

FILLMORE, cont.

#’s 36 and 36-1 and 2. To take 5 acres from the remaining 15 acres of the site to accommodate a 50’ access strip on the existing house lot. He added that a waiver had been requested regarding topographic studies so that minimal mapping could be done to assure the placement of the house for Lot #36-1 and its driveway which went approximately 500’ back from the parent lot. Earl Sanford, LLS, stated the 50’ strip had a 3% grade and although the site contained areas of steep slopes the existing house was built on a flat crest of land and the property was also level at its base. James Nordstrom asked the average slope calculated for both lots. Earl Sanford, LLS, replied the slope averaged 22%. He added that although it would be a challenge to build the house on Lot # 36-1, the slope would lend itself to a natural situation for a walk-out basement. He added that a steep driveway could be avoided by using and following the contours of the existing woods road on the site. James Nordstrom asked if the applicant was aware of the recent posting of the Steep Slopes Ordinance for the March 2005 Town vote. Earl Sanford, LLS, replied that he was but that the application had been submitted before that posting. James Nordstrom noted that the application would have to have been accepted prior to the posting of Steep Slopes Ordinance in order to be exempt to any new zoning changes it referenced. Earl Sanford stated that the plan was worked in accordance with the regulations in place at that time but would make proper adjustments going forward. Dottie Fillmore wished to note that the proposed driveway on the plan was flat with no negligible grades. Dave Woodbury noted that driveway grades were only a portion of the issue and that the purpose of the Steep Slopes Ordinance was to avoid development on steep portions of land. James Nordstrom concurred and clarified that the main goal of the Ordinance was the preservation of natural resources. Dave Woodbury felt that the applicant had the option of waiting to see if the Ordinance passed the Town vote or adjusting the plan in accordance with those zoning changes presented by the Ordinance. James Nordstrom added that it would not be acceptable for the Board to accept the current application as complete given the current zoning change posted. Earl Sanford, LLS, felt more topography would be required for the plan given this information. James Nordstrom noted 1.5 acres of contiguous flat land was required in order to build on a parcel, similar to the requirement where wetland were present on a site. Dave Woodbury asked if this meant the house needed to be built on the flat portion. James Nordstrom felt the intent was that the buildable area should be the flat portion. Dottie Fillmore noted that in the case of her application if the house was built on the flat portion the driveway would become too steep per the Town’s Driveway Regulations. James Nordstrom replied that he did not disagree with Dottie Fillmore’s rationale but noted this issue was slightly more complicated. Dave Woodbury also questioned the flatness of the buildable area for Lot #36-10 as presented. Earl Sanford, LLS, stated that on behalf of the client they understood the Board was required to deal with the posting rule, however, protested the retroactive effect on this application. James Nordstrom stated he also felt the submittal time and not the acceptance time should apply but that the Land Use Regulations dictated that criteria. The Chairman summarized that the applicant could apply the Steep Slopes Ordinance to the plan or wait for the outcome of the Town ballot.

James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Franklin and Dottie Fillmore,

FILLMORE, cont.

Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Jessica Lane, Tax Map/Lot #14/36 & 36-1, “R-A” District, to January 25, 2005, at 8:45 p.m. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

NEW BOSTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION & Adjourned from 11/9/04

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 was Betsy Dodge of the Conservation Commission. The Chairman asked what information had been uncovered since the last meeting.

Betsy Dodge summarized that the original railroad went under Parker Station at a noted steep grade but that once B&M gave up the railroad the tunnel was no longer used. She added that it then became necessary for pedestrians to cross over the triangle of land in question and continue across Parker Road to reconnect with the railroad bed trail. Betsy Dodge then explained that B&M had taken their right-of-way through that adjoining property which became the property of Coastal Corporation and later Aggregate Industries Land Company. She noted on the sketch provided where the original boundaries connected the deeded land from Aggregate to the Town owned railroad bed. The Chairman clarified that the Town’s existing property was in line and the triangle of land was being annexed. Betsy Dodge replied that was correct. She noted that the deed language had been forwarded by Bob Todd, LLS, to Mike Sullivan, Esq., in Wilton, New Hampshire, so that it would be prepared if the Board accepted the application.

The Chairman asked if the application had already been accepted as complete. The Planning Assistant replied that it had not. The Chairman thought the waivers requested for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies were not applicable to the application.

Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the application of New Boston Conservation Commission and Aggregate Industries Land Company, Minor Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Parker Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/58 and 3/56, “R-A” District, as complete. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for New Boston Conservation Commission & Aggregate Industries Land Company, for Tax Map/Lot # 3/58 & 3/86, Parker Road, subject to:

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:

CONSERVATION/AGGREGATE, cont.

1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections.

2. Submission of the 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 March 31, 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.

Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 14, 2004

1. Approval of minutes of November 9, 2004, with or without changes. (Distributed at the November 23, 2004, meeting.)

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of November 9, 2004, as written. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

2. The minutes of November 23, 2004, were distributed for approval at the December 28, 2004, meeting with or without changes.

7. Compliance drive by on the Conditional Use Permit, for 2 Wetland Crossings for Benjamin Strauss & Stephanie Ridley, (formerly Timothy White), Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/38.

It was noted that the above item was addressed during the hearing for Benjamin Strauss and Stephanie Ridley this evening.

8. Compliance drive by on driveways for RJ Moreau, Popple Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-8, #6/32-20 and possibly #6/32-13.

The Chairman question if this was the driveway located on the top of hill on Inkberry Road and if it was the one broken up and only 12 feet wide. James Nordstrom confirmed it was. The Board agreed driveway #20 was narrow and unacceptable. He added that none of the driveways were properly marked and that he had been unable to locate Lot #6/32-13. Don Duhaime agreed and noted he too was unable to locate Lot # 6/32-13. The Chairman stated that he believed Lot #6/32-8 to be the only compliant driveway of those noted above.

MORIN, KAREN M., REVOCABLE TRUST

Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing/Design Review

Major Subdivision/5 Lots

Location: Greenfield Road

Tax Map/Lot# 7/74

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Mike Dahlberg, Todd Connors, PE, and Paul Morin. Abutters and interested parties present were Pete and Sherry Maloney, Kim DiPietro and Susan Woodard.

Mike Dahlberg stated that the site was location 440’ west of the intersection of Greenfield Road and Cochran Hill Road and the applicant proposed to construct a new roadway and subdivide five new lots on a 28 acre parcel of land. He added that a Conditional Use Permit would be required for one minor wetland crossing. Mike Dahlberg further noted that the applicant had met with the Conservation Commission regarding the wetland crossing which they had approved after a site walk was held on the property. He added that the State had approved the subdivision for two of the lots that were less than five acres. Mike Dahlberg stated that the plans had been revised per comments by Dufresne-Henry, Inc. and the Planning Assistant. He noted that the site was currently accessed by a Class V portion of Greenfield road and that a site walk with the Board and Road Agent would offer more insight into what upgrades it would need if the project advanced. Mike Dahlberg next described the road plan as one which conformed to Town regulations with a minor wetland crossing and a cul-de-sac at the end. He noted locations of the proposed driveways on the plan and added that maximum driveway grades would be 8%. He noted that Site Specific was not required for this project and that the applicant wished to start the project in the spring of 2005 if the plan was approved and Federal permits were obtained. Mike Dahlberg stated that several waivers were requested and the first was to show abutters septic systems. He noted the location of the Nixon house, Lot #7/75, and presumed its septic system was located in the back portion of that lot. Mike Dahlberg further noted that the Morgan house, Lot #7/76, was greater than 400’ from the site and Lot #’s 7/76-5 and 7/76-4 were located so far from the site that the septic systems could not be shown on the plan. Secondly, Mike Dahlberg asked that the requirement for road construction estimates for the bond, based on total construction costs and improvements to Greenfield Road, be waived until the final plan was completed and review comments were received by Dufresne-Henry, Inc. He noted that the 200’ squares were now on the plan and that remaining items were drafting corrections and not technical issues.

James Nordstrom asked if this application was presented to the Board the previous summer. Mike Dahlberg replied that the applicant was before the Board in July, 2004. He noted that this plan was approved with higher density in the late 1980’s but was subsequently abandoned and the current plan now proposed three lots less than the former one as wetland areas had since increased. Mike Dahlberg replied that prior to submission of the application the Planning Coordinator informed him that the Board would consider cul-de-sac length proposals up to 1,000’ in length. He noted that the plan’s proposed cul-de-sac was 996’ from the property

line to the beginning of the cul-de-sac and that the land beyond that point could not be further

MORIN, cont.

developed due to abutting wetlands.

A site walk was scheduled for January 8, 2005, at 8:30 p.m.+/-.

Kim DiPietro, Chairman of the Forestry Committee, stated that she had reviewed the lot lines on the western side of the site and felt a marking discrepancy existed. She explained that a trail crossed behind the rear portion of the ball fields on Cochran Hill Road and was planned for an extension through the O’Rourke lot. Kim DiPietro noted that an additional trail was also proposed which would lead to the Dodge lot. She added that because the applicant’s lot line crossed through the former mentioned trail she felt it should be brought to the Board’s attention as an official survey had never been done on the O’Rourke parcel. Mike Dahlberg replied that he had performed the original survey in 1988, which came within 1/10 of a foot in comparison to the work done on the same site by Jim O’Rourke and T.F. Moran in the 1970’s. The Chairman asked Kim DiPietro if she would like to attend the site walk scheduled for January 8, 2005. Kim DiPietro replied that she would make sure a representative from the Forestry Committee was in attendance and asked where the site walk would commence. Paul Morin replied that those who attended the site walk would meet at the proposed entrance to the cul-de-sac. Mike Dahlberg noted that some confusion may have arisen due to the fact that the wetland and topography flags were place by a colorblind employee. Dave Woodbury noted that the Board would not be in the position to ascertain the correct or incorrect placement of the pins at the site walk. Mike Dahlberg reiterated that he performed all his own calculations and guaranteed his stamp on the plans.

Peter Maloney asked if it was noted on the plan that no further subdivision would occur. Mike Dahlberg replied that the correct statement was that the proposed road would not be extended. Pete Maloney asked the size of the proposed lots. Mike Dahlberg noted the lot acreages as 8.8, 8.7, 3.0, 2.0 and 2.0. Pete Maloney asked if the applicant would consider a plan restriction for no further subdivision. Mike Dahlberg replied that he would discuss that option with the applicant. Dave Woodbury noted that the lot on the plan located furthest to the left seemed non-subdividable, as it was a back lot. Mike Dahlberg noted that if Greenfield Road was upgraded in the future enough area would exist to create an additional lot in that location.

Susan Woodard asked if an Environmental Impact Study was required for the plan. The Chairman replied that the applicant had requested a waiver on that Study. Susan Woodard felt that an Environmental Impact Study should be required for the site due to the amount of wetlands and ledge in the area, and also a pond. She added that she was unsure if the EPA would require a permit for storm water, etc. Mike Dahlberg explained that in a previous meeting the Board determined that Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies were not necessary due to the size of the proposed subdivision. He added that no ledge was encountered when test pits were dug on the site and that wetlands were flagged by field survey. Mike Dahlberg stated that based on the information gathered it was determined that adequate room existed for building, septic systems and driveways. James Nordstrom noted to Susan Woodard that as Mike Dahlberg stated, and in the last several years, subdivisions of this size were not generally required by the Board to submit Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies. The Chairman added that a final determination on the requirement for theses Studies would be decided at the site walk for the

MORIN, cont.

applicant. Sherry Maloney stated that she was believed an Environmental Impact Study should be required of the applicant due the increased wetlands on the site. Mike Dahlberg explained that his comment had been misinterpreted and the increase in wetlands was the result of changes in the State’s Wetland Delineation Regulations from the 1980’s to the present day. James Nordstrom clarified that over time the criteria had changed in the definition of wetlands. Mike Dahlberg added that the plan proposed under drains on the proposed road, which would also be required by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., and noted several the high and dry areas on the plan where soils had been classified as well drained Cantons and Hinckleys and some areas of Monadnock. Susan Woodard noted that high did not mean dry as her own property was higher than the site and very wet. She asked if the Board had received a letter from Carolyn Morgan, which addressed similar concerns. The Chairman replied that the Board had received that letter and would consider this issue at the site walk. Susan Woodard stated that she also wondered if a Traffic Study was warranted as surrounding dirt roads could be paved in the future. She noted that traffic which turned onto Greenfield road normally slowed as it encountered the dirt surface and for the safety of farm animals in that location asked if a speed bump could be installed if the road became paved. The Chairman thought the installation of a speed bump was very unlikely. Brandy Mitroff added that a speed bump would be a hindrance to Town plows. Paul Morin stated that as the owner/developer of this project, he would be in favor of a 20 m.p.h. speed limit and had purposely planned the entrance to the proposed road further down Greenfield Road so that it was offset from existing driveways. He added that a portion of Greenfield Road displayed an annual daylily presentation which he feared would be affected by upgrades to the road and hoped in the event of upgrades a lesser standard of width would be considered by the Town in order to protect that natural display. The Chairman stated that a 20 m.p.h. traffic speed could not be set on a Town road as the lowest speed set was 35 m.p.h.

James Nordstrom asked if the applicant was aware of the recently posted Zoning Ordinance regarding Steep Slopes. Mike Dahlberg replied that the full size plans took the application of steep slopes into consideration and that the contiguous usable area was calculated after the subtraction of wetlands and steep slopes.

James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Karin M. Morin Revocable Trust, Major Subdivision, 5 Lots, Location: Greenfield Road, Tax Map/Lot# 7/74, “R-A” District, to January 25, 2005, at 9:00 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

9. Discussion Re: Rick Herget & Carol Hayse, Rock Removal Operation, 79 Summit Drive, Tax Map/Lot #14/128.

The Chairman stated that he was inclined to agree with the findings of the Code Enforcement Officer in that there were no findings in this case. Dave Woodbury noted that he

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

had received several complaints in the previous over the summer and fall from nearby residents that suggested the scope of work that was being done at 79 Summit Drive exceeded the scope of the applicants’ permits. He added that he had advised those residents that the topic would be discussed at an upcoming Planning Board meeting and was surprised that none of those individuals were in attendance to provide further input this evening. The Chairman stated that both the Building Inspector and the Town Administrator had found that Rick Herget and Carol Hayse were removing rock from the site to improve their property and also to build a septic system, which was allowed and considered incidental to the building process. Dave Woodbury stated the Building Inspector had advised the applicants that their site plan needed to be revised as “non-residential” because they had exceeded the allowed number of a single non-family employee for their project. He added that the applicants had acknowledged this requirement and that because rock removal was a seasonal operation he assumed they would presently cease operation and possibly approach the Selectmen in April, 2005 as they would also need a Gravel Permit.

10. Discussion Re: Driveway, Bog Brook Road, Robert Vaughn, Tax Map/Lot #9/41-4.

James Nordstrom recused himself from the Board as his employer performed survey work for the applicant.

The Planning Assistant explained that Mr. Vaughn wished to revise his driveway plan and add a curb cut onto his property line so that the entire shared driveway entrance was on his lot where the abutting future lot owner could obtain an easement for use. The Chairman asked James Nordstrom if he understood the details to be the same. James Nordstrom replied that he was unsure of the particulars but thought the adjoining lot owner never took ownership of his property and that Mr. Vaughn intended to leave the shared driveway as it stood. The Chairman stated that Mr. Vaughn would need to have his driveway plans re-engineered by a professional so that a measure of accountability was retained. He added that the driveway was most likely designed as it was due to a serious elevation problem on Mr. Vaughn’s lot, which warranted its current position. The Planning Assistant stated she would contact Mr. Vaughn.

11a. Letter received November 30, 2004, from New Boston Road Committee, to Michele Brown, New Boston Planning Board, Re: Vista Road, LLC, Hutchinson Road, 14 Lot Subdivision, for the Board’s information.

11b. Memorandum dated December 2, 2004, to Planning Board Members, from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Road Committee Concerns-Vista Road, for the Board’s information.

The Planning Assistant explained that item #11a. dealt with the Road Committee’s interest in the Vista Road project and that since this letter they had met with Brian Holt of Vista Road, LLC and Jeff Kevan, PE, of T.F. Moran. She added that item #11b. was the Planning

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

Coordinator’s response to this letter. James Nordstrom stated that the Planning Coordinator felt the issues being brought up now by the Road Committee had already been discussed previously in the application process. The Planning Assistant noted that the Planning Coordinator felt it was late in the process for the Road Committee to request a Traffic Study of Vista Road and should have taken an interest earlier on. James Nordstrom noted that a similar determination had been made in a previous subdivision that concerned traffic impacts to the intersection of Wilson Hill Road and Bedford Road but added that a sight distance problem existed in that location. Don Duhaime stated that in a meeting between the Road Committee and Vista Road, LLC, on December 13, 2004, an agreement had been reached between the two where money would be given to the Town by Vista Road, LLC which could possibly aid in the acquisition of road frontage in the location of the intersection so that sight distance could be improved.

13. Copy of letter dated December 7, 2004, from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Thomas Welch, Esq., Hobbins & Gardner, LLC, Re: Cell Tower, Dodge Property, Tax Map/Lot # 5/21-1, for the Board’s information.

The Planning Assistant stated that this letter addressed the bond for the project and what still needed to be done by Singular.

14. Letter received December 7, 2004, from Kimberlee Burkhamer, to Peter Hogan, Chairman, New Boston Planning Board, Re: Right Way Builders-Beard Road Subdivision, for the Board’s information.

15. Copy of letter received November 26, 2004, from Jeffrey Blecharczyk, DES, to James Dodge, New Boston Self Storage, Re: Request for more information, for the Board’s information.

James Nordstrom stated that DES wanted a lot of work done to the site. The Planning Assistant added that DES required additional information to clarify and complete their review. James Nordstrom noted that DES offered the solution of a retaining wall to the project.

16. Daily road inspection reports dated, October18^th, 20^th, 27^th, 28^th, November 1^st, and 4^th , from Dufresne-Henry, Re: Highland Hills, for the Board’s information.

17. Daily road inspection reports dated, September 28^th, October 14^th, 15^th, and 21^st, from Dufresne-Henry, Re: Waldorf Estates, for the Board’s information.

The Chairman stated that the road appeared complete and asked if the applicants had approached the Planning Board for a final inspection. The Planning Assistant replied that she had not yet been contacted but knew that the applicant owed fees to Dufresne-Henry, Inc.

18. Daily road inspection reports dated, October 20^th, 21^st, 25^th, 26^th, 27^th, November 1^st, 4^th,

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

5^th, 10^th, and 12^th, from Dufresne-Henry, Re: Indian Falls, for the Board’s information.

19. Daily road inspection reports dated, August 4^th, 30^th, September 17^th, October 7^th, and 11^th, from Dufresne-Henry, Re: CVI Development, for the Board’s information.

20. Copy received December 6, 2004, of December 2, 2004, Meeting Minutes of the Piscataquog River Local Advisory Committee meeting, for the Board’s information.

(re: Vista Road, LLC)

21. Announcement received December 6, 2004, from Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, to Planning Boards. Re: National Flood Insurance Rate Map Workshop, for the Board’s information.

5. Signature required for the revised approval of a Driveway Permit Application for McCurdy Development LLC, Warren Drive, Tax Map/Lot #12/19-6, by the Planning Board Chairman.

Because a drive-by had not been done for the above it was determined that this item would be addressed at the next Planning Board meeting.

22. Discussion, Re: Fraser Drive.

The Planning Assistant stated that it was brought to the attention of the Planning Department that a recent ice storm made the road treacherous to travel and residents were concerned that emergency vehicles could have an issue servicing Fraser Drive in such conditions. She thought the Board should consider pulling CVI Development’s bond money to complete the road acceptance process. The Planning Assistant further added that she believed the road was complete, however, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., was unable to sign-off their approval without an As-Built Plan. She added that once the As-Built Plan was provided it needed to be compared to the Slope and Drainage by Town Counsel, recording costs collected, a Town site inspection performed and a Compliance Hearing held. James Nordstrom asked the Recording Clerk, a resident on Fraser Drive, if all lots had been completed. The Recording Clerk replied that the final house should be completed before the year-end. James Nordstrom asked the Recording Clerk if she had seen surveyors on the road. The Recording Clerk replied that she had seen surveyors several times recently including today but their truck were not labeled with a company name. The Chairman asked if Bedford Design Consultants could confirm that they held the As Built Plan and suggested the Planning Assistant contact them. The Planning Assistant added she had left messages with Eric Farris of CVI Development and Bolton White. She noted that the bond money could be used to maintain the road in the interim, The Chairman replied that this should not be done as the Town should not maintain a road that had not yet been

accepted as compliant. He asked if Dufresne-Henry, Inc. had informed the Planning Assistant

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

that the road appeared to be compliant. The Planning Assistant replied that she had received a verbal confirmation by Dufresne-Henry, Inc. that the road appeared compliant. The Chairman stated that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., could be asked to recommend a design firm to do an As Built Plan. James Nordstrom noted that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., could not do the As Built plan themselves because it would be a conflict of interest. The Chairman asked the Planning Assistant to obtain three estimates for As Built plans and to add 10-20% administrative cost, which would be paid out of the bond money. James Nordstrom stated that the release of bond funding was not an easy process. The Planning Board Assistant noted that the bond was funded by cash and was held in amounts of $7,600.00 for construction estimates and $22K in security escrow at the Bank of New Hampshire. The Chairman noted that Bill Dresher, Esq., should also be aware of these events.

23. Letter dated December 13, 2004, from Dufresne-Henry to the Board, Re: reduction of bond estimate for Nissitissit Development, LLC, for the Board’s action

The Chairman stated that the bond reduction was recommended by Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.

James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the reduction of the bond estimate captioned in the letter dated December 13, 2004, by Dufresne-Henry, Inc. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

24. Driveway Permit Application for RJ Moreau Communities, LLC, Swanson Road, Tax Map/Lot #’s 6/32-27 & 28, for proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.

(Board to drive by prior to meeting)

Don Duhaime stated that he had viewed the driveways noted which were located near the trailer at the end of the cul-de-sac and commented that they appeared to go straight downhill. He asked if R.J. Moreau was required to submit engineered drawings of the driveways for this subdivision as they appeared similar in design to those on Inkberry Road where an 8% grade could not be achieved. The Chairman replied that R.J. Moreau needed to show the Board how the grades could be under 10% by providing engineered plans for both driveways and making sure the driveways were properly marked which was a consistent short coming.

25. Letter received December 13, 2004, from Andy Philippy to the Board, Re: home business, for the Board’s review and discussion.

The Chairman did not think that the above item represented a home business. Shannon Silver of the Building Department stated that Mr. Philippy wished to erect a sign in front of his house to advertise that he was a plumber. She added that he said he was not plumbing out of his home and the Building Inspector stated he would not issue a sign permit unless he filed a Site

Plan. The Chairman thought this scenario fell under the definition of a home shop as referenced

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

in Section 319 of the Site Plan Regulations. He added that Mr. Philippy would need to submit to a Site Plan review which required a sketch of parking areas, his truck where his materials were stored and most importantly where his business sign would be posted and how it would be illuminated. He added that Mr. Phillipy did not have a business in his home because he was a plumber. The Chairman noted that a personal sketch of the Site Plan would suffice and a surveyor was not necessary.

26. Copy of letter dated December 1, 2004, to the Selectmen and Fire Dept from Paul Carideo, TF Moran, Re: proposed road name for the Harvey Dupuis Family Trust subdivision, for the Board’s information.

27. Notice of Decision from the Board of Selectmen, Re: acceptance of Carriage Road.

28. Announcement of the EPA Storm Water Management Workshop, January 14, 2005, Merrimack, NH, for the Board’s information.

3. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan, for Thomas & Christine Quirk, Friendly Beaver Campground, Cochran Hill Road, Map/Lot # 7/11, by the Planning Board Chairman, and Secretary.

The Chairman endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.

4. Endorsement of a Site Plan, for Julie Dillon, Tax Map/Lot #3/72, 422 Riverdale Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

The Chairman endorsed the above noted Site Plan.

6. Signature required for an approved Driveway Permit Application for Timothy & Lauren Burnham, Arrow Wood Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/35-14, by the Planning Board Chairman.

The Chairman endorsed the above noted Driveway Permit Application.

12. Discussion Re: Driveway Regulations, for Final Review by the Planning Board.

The Chairman asked the Planning Assistant not to schedule any business after 8:30 p.m. on the meeting of December 28, 2004, so that the Board could dedicate the remaining time to the review and discussion of the Driveway Regulations.

At 10:55 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Dave Woodbury seconded the

motion and it PASSED unanimously.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne O’Brien,

Recording Clerk Minutes Approved: