The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members James Nordstrom, Travis Daniels and Bob Furey; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom; and, alternate Don Duhaime. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nicola Strong, 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, Terry O’Connor, Bob and June Edwards, Rachel Swinford, Arthur Siciliano, LLS, Gary Lincoln, George St. John, Sr., George St. John, Jr., Michael Sullivan, Ray Shea, Kevin and Jennifer Bourgeois, Lynn Strong, Bo Strong, Christine Filteau, Don and Rosemary Sanborn, Mike Dahlberg, LLS, Paul Morin and Bob LeClair.
DILLON, JULIE Adjourned from 06/22/04
Public Hearing
Non-Residential Site Plan Review/ Boarding and Riding Stable
Location: 422 Riverdale Road
Tax Map/Lot #3/72
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Julie Dillon and a friend. No abutters were present.
Julie Dillon stated that she had received the Coordinator’s checklist items dated July 21, 2004. She noted she had revised the site plan’s exterior sketch to show the location of the “manure storage” area and wanted to clarify that it was not located in the same area as the “spectator/guest observation” area as the revised sketch suggested. Julie Dillon further noted that the “spectator/guest observation” area was located a considerable distance from the paddock.
Bob Furey asked which area’s title was correct for the location discussed on the site plan. Julie Dillon apologized for the confusion and stated that she had drawn arrows from the title of “spectator/guest observation” to show its true location outside the paddock and near the paved drive. She added that the “manure storage” location was noted by a square drawn where the “spectator/guest observation” title was written on the plans.
The Chairman asked if the applicant had a design detail of the manure storage area. Julie Dillon said she did not yet have this completed as she was currently dealing with contractors for painting, gutters and fencing, but was awaiting a proposal from Sperry Concrete for the cement slab of the proposed manure storage area. She added that she would also be purchasing a manure spreader for a broadcasting system which would be used in the spring, summer and fall seasons along the former runway area. Julie Dillon noted that the manure storage area would only be used in the winter when broadcasting was not feasible due to snow. Julie Dillon said that she would submit her bids and revised plans as soon she heard from appropriate contractors. The
Chairman noted that the detail of the manure storage area was an important item required for this site plan. Julie Dillon said that she understood and took responsibility for any delays to the application by not having this information for the plan.
The Chairman asked if there were any comments from Board members who had attended the site walk and noted that revisions had been made to eliminate the loop or circular driveway portion which would reduce the business signage required. He added that the site plan made it
DILLON, JULIE, cont.
appear that cars would need to back out onto the road from the driveway, however, this was not the case as the actual driveway was deeper than what was depicted on the plans. Julie Dillon’s friend agreed and said she had plenty of room to back up and drive a car out forward from the driveway onto the main road.
James Nordstrom was curious to know how the manure storage area would be constructed and maintained. Julie Dillon again apologized for not having this information and said Mary Kate O’Donnell was working on a bid for a bunker and a roof and Mr. Sperry was preparing a bid for the cement slab. The Chairman said he did not require the bids, only the specifications and narrative on how the manure storage area would be constructed. Julie Dillon said she had liked the Board’s recommendation for a covered bunker and was seeking bids for that type of structure. She added that it would be located above the flood line and 12 feet by five feet in size. The Chairman noted that the roof structure only needed to be capable of shedding water beyond
the walls of the storage area and suggested a metal roof which would be light weight and easily shed snow. He added that a metal roofing contractor could further recommend the type of structure that should support it. Julie Dillon said she had considered building this structure herself. The Chairman noted that a metal roofing contractor could still offer some guidance. Julie Dillon said she would update the plan with details of the manure storage area as soon as possible.
The Chairman stated he did not see any other issues with the plan other than the missing information for the manure storage area and asked the applicant if she had contacted 4H for their recommendations. Julie Dillon replied that they were considering standards from the EPA and UNH Equine Scientists and would make a decision in conjunction with their contractors as to which standard they would use. She added that she wanted to do as much of the work herself as possible.
The Chairman said once this information was prepared she should contact the Planning Department. He then asked the Coordinator if the applicant would be required to pay for certified letters to re-notice abutters. The Coordinator said this would not be necessary if they adjourned to another meeting date. The Chairman asked when the applicant felt she would have the manure storage area details completed. Julie Dillon said she would like to have her current contractors finish their work so that she had the time to concentrate on forthcoming bids from contractors for the storage area. The Chairman said he did not want to schedule a date that did not afford her enough preparation time. Julie Dillon thought that she could be ready with this
information in 30 days. The Chairman noted that the storage area did not need to be built within this time frame and that only the specifications and narrative on its design were required.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn Julie Dillon, Non-Residential Site Plan Review/Boarding and Riding Stable, Location: 422 Riverdale Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/72, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to August 24, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 27, 2004
1. Approval of the minutes of June 22, 2004, with or without changes. (Distributed at the July 13, 2004 meeting.)
James Nordstrom noted the following corrections should be made to the minutes: Page #1, 4 lines from the bottom should read: “He added that the plan also noted that catch basins…”, Page #11, 7 lines from the top should read: “The Coordinator noted that it was acceptable to submit revisions at the meeting for completeness of an application but did not require the plans to be correct.”, Page #20: Roger Noonan’s name was misspelled.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of June 22, 2004, as amended. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Driveway Permit Applications for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Popple Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-7, 6/32-15, for proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.
(Board to drive by prior to meeting)
Bob Furey stated that he had viewed the driveways and thought that the driveway for Lot #6/32-7 might not meet the Town’s -3% entrance grade requirement even though the finish grade of the road would most likely increase by an additional foot (12”). Don Duhaime had also viewed the driveways and agreed with Bob Furey’s observation. James Nordstrom asked if Lot #6/32-7’s driveway should then be given conditional approval. The Chairman replied that any driveways that had the potential for positive grades where they met the road should be rechecked by the Planning Board to confirm compliance with the Town’s grade criteria.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Applications 04-057 and 04- 056, for proposed driveways, Lots 6/32-15 and 6/32-7, 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 applications,
it is stipulated that the driveway grade for Driveway Permit Application #04-056 will be inspected by the Board or its designee for compliance. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
4. A copy of a memorandum dated July 13, 2004, from M.N. Sharma, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, Executive Director, to Chairmen of Planning Boards, Re: Video Tapes and a CD, was distributed for the Board’s information.
(Available in office upon request).
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
5. A copy of an article from The Union Leader, Tuesday, June 22, 2004, Re: Impact fees may see hike, was distributed for the Board’s information.
3. A copy of a memorandum dated July 20, 2004, from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Planning Board Members, Re: Planning Board Liaison, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman said that because he worked out of town he was unable to visit the Planning Department to answer questions during the day but was reachable via e-mail. James Nordstrom said his case was the same and that he was also reachable by e-mail or phone to answer any questions. He added that he would be willing to schedule a time to meet with the Planning Board Assistant except between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
The Planning Board Assistant said she could meet for an hour in the evenings or before Planning Board meetings were held. Bob Furey asked if any issues could be handled by phone. The Planning Board Assistant replied that different scenarios could be tried as they went along and that many situations could most likely be handled by phone. James Nordstrom asked if e-mail would also suffice and the Planning Board Assistant replied that updates to items such as draft letters could be e-mailed. The Chairman said that questions should be e-mailed to both he and James Nordstrom for assured responses. The Coordinator added that it would be helpful to the Planning Board Assistant if specifics desired on items such as draft letters were confirmed at the
Planning Board meetings. Don Duhaime added that he returned home most days by 4:30 p.m. and lived only a short distance from the Town Hall if that was helpful.
The Coordinator stated that the only remaining issue was who would edit the pre-draft minutes from Planning Board meetings. The Chairman, James Nordstrom and Bob Furey offered to review the pre-drafts.
The Chairman clarified that Town Counsel would be addressing Subdivision Regulations and Site Plan Review Regulations and asked if it was realistic to assume a public hearing date of August 10, 2004. The Coordinator said this was a reasonable assumption.
The Coordinator stated that the last item dealt with the need for two Planning Board members to sit on the CIP Committee. She added that Shawn Fish and Paula Bellemore would be on the committee as “citizens at large” and Kevin Lefebvre was interested and had been on the CIP Committee two prior times as a delegate of the Planning Board. Bob Furey asked what was involved in sitting on this committee. The Coordinator replied that there were four or five meetings, some with department heads, where capital projects for the Town were reviewed and financial plans compiled for the next six year period. Gordon Carlstrom added that the meetings were straightforward and also dealt with priorities for the current year which were then compiled into one
report. The Chairman said he was agreeable to assigning a Planning Board delegate to the committee. The Coordinator noted that one additional Planning Board member would still be needed. Don Duhaime stated that he might be available to sit on the CIP Committee but could have some conflicts with September dates and asked when the meetings would begin. The
Coordinator stated that the Committee liked to have members assured by the end of August and
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
that meetings would most likely start mid September and go through mid October.
EDWARDS, JUNE
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/6 Lots
Location: Dougherty Lane and Tucker Mill Road
Tax Map/Lot #2/17
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Terry O’Connor of Granite State Survey and Bob and June Edwards. An abutter present was Rachel Swinford.
Terry O’Connor stated that since the last meeting with the Board the applicant had submitted a final application for the subdivision. He added that all items for the application had been covered except for a waiver request for monumentation which he would review tonight. In addition, Terry O’Connor stated that he had addressed items on the Coordinator’s checklist as follows:
-Item #3: The additional line in the signature block was removed.
-Item #5: Correction to volume and page information for abutter on Tax Map/Lot #2/15.
-Item #6: Signatures and professional seals of the Licensed Land Surveyor and Soils Scientist were added to the plans.
-Item #12: A waiver request was made for monumentation in the subdivision.
Terry O’Connor explained that the Town’s regulations required stone bounds to be set at the front corners of the subdivision. He stated that all monuments shown on the plan were already in place or were set at the time of surveys to the site and noted on the plan where existing stone walls were located. Terry O’Connor stated that at stone walls there were ½” by ½” deep drill holes in the base stones of these walls and asked the Board if these could serve as monumentation which was acceptable by the State, in order that the walls would not have to be disassembled.
-Item #25: Calculations were provided on the plan to connect the right-of-ways of the subdivision site to those on the opposite side of the road.
-Item #55: Note #7 was deleted as it did not pertain to the subdivision. In its place the purpose for the 50’ right-of-way dedication on Dougherty Lane was inserted along with an explanation for Tucker Mill Road’s varying right-of-way widths as being directly affected by the varying width of the road and the coinciding location of the existing stone walls.
The Chairman stated that the waiver requests for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies needed to be addressed before the application could be considered complete.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waivers requested for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies requested in
EDWARDS, JUNE, cont.
the letter dated July 11, 2004, prepared by Les Mills of Granite State Survey, describing the waiver requests and the rationale therefor. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Rachel Swinford asked what was implied by waiving the Environmental Impact Study. The Chairman explained that because the construction of this subdivision was not likely to cause any significant environmental impacts the Board was waiving the requirement for the applicant to provide a study that would inform them of the same. He added that the applicant would still be required to abide by all State laws that dictated protection of the environment during construction of the subdivision.
The Chairman asked if the Coordinator agreed with the corrections made to the plan and the Coordinator replied that she had not yet reviewed the changes made.
The Chairman asked Mr. O’Connor if bounds were to be set at the corners of Lot #’s 2/17 and 2/17-3. Terry O’Connor said this was the case and pointed out the location of a drill hole in the base stone at the end of a stone wall near one of the corner bounds. He added that base stones showed where the stone walls ended and began again. The Chairman asked the Board if they felt there was an issue in using a base stone with a drill hole as monumentation. James Nordstrom replied that although it was contrary to requirements of the Board it was acceptable throughout the State.
The Chairman asked Terry O’Connor if the monumentation item was the final waiver requested and Mr. O’Connor said that it was the only waiver that had not been previously submitted as he had wished to discuss it at tonight’s hearing.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waiver request to Section IX-A of the Subdivision Regulations regarding monumentation where a drill hole in the base stone would be accepted in lieu of a stone bound at the corner of Lot #’s 2/17 and 2/17-3. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that legal documentation could now be forwarded to Town Counsel for review. The Coordinator added that language was still required for the dedication of the Dougherty Lane right-of-way. Terry O’Connor wished to confirm that this was a deed description and the Chairman said that it was and would be reviewed by Town Counsel.
The Chairman asked the Board if there were any issues with the calculation for Road improvements of $1,260 and there were none.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of June Edwards, Major Subdivision/6 Lots, Location: Dougherty Lane and Tucker Mill Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/17, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the only outstanding item was the deed language for the road
EDWARDS, JUNE, cont.
and Terry O’Connor asked if this should be forwarded to the Coordinator once it was prepared. The Chairman said it should be and would then be forwarded to Town Counsel.
The Chairman asked if any abutters wished to speak. Rachel Swinford said that after conversations she had with the Coordinator she realized that development was inevitable but
hoped that the surrounding wetlands of this subdivision would be protected. Terry O’Connor replied that wetlands were protected by State law and that Dredge and Fill Permits were required for anyone who sought to do work in a wetlands area. He added that strict fines were imposed on anyone who violated these laws. Rachel Swinford said she understood and was concerned on a personal level as she hoped to have her property for her lifetime and pass it on to her children. Terry O’Connor said that her concerns were understandable.
Terry O’Connor asked if the deed language for the road was a condition of the plan’s approval. The Chairman said that it was and would be a condition precedent. Terry O’Connor wished to clarify that the monuments would not be set until the plan was approved and that mylars along with a letter of certification would then be forwarded to the Board. The Chairman said this was the case.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan of Land of June Edwards, Major Subdivision, 6 Lots, on Dougherty Lane and Tucker Mill Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/17, 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 a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Approval of the language of the Declaration of 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.
4. Submission of executed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions regarding sprinkler systems. The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be born by the applicant.
5. Submission of the off-site road improvements assessment in the amount of $1,260.00.
6. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
7. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application, including the cost of recording documents at the Registry of Deeds.
8. Submission and review by Town Counsel of the language relative to the dedication of the Dougherty Lane right-of-way, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
9. Certification that the monuments have been set on the final plat.
10. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be
signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be January 30,
EDWARDS, JUNE, cont.
2005, 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. 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.
Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Terry O’Connor asked if he would be provided copies of the conditions precedent and subsequent and the Chairman they would be.
Travis Daniels MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Applications 04-028, 04-029, 04- 030, 04-031, 04-032 and 04-033, for proposed driveways, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: 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. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
6. The minutes of July 13, 2004, were distributed for approval at the meeting of August 10, 2004, with or without changes.
8. A copy of a memorandum dated July 20, 2004, from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Roger Noonan, Planning Board Alternate, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that this item was moot as Mr. Noonan submitted his letter of resignation which was detailed in Miscellaneous Business Item #13.
7. Driveway Permit Applications for Nissitissit Development, LLC, Warren Drive, Tax Map/Lot #12/19-7, 12/19-8, 12/19-9, 12/19-10, for proposed driveway, for the Board’s action. (Board to drive by prior to meeting)
The Chairman asked if there were any issues concerning these permit applications. James Nordstrom stated that there might be some drainage deficiencies on some of the driveways. Gordon Carlstrom asked what the deficiencies were. James Nordstrom replied that culverts might be required for some of the driveways and Gordon Carlstrom noted that the Road
Agent should be informed of such specific concerns. James Nordstrom replied that the Road
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
Agent received a copy of the applications and that a driveway in need of culverts was a standard
requirement. Bob Furey had viewed the driveways and agreed with James Nordstrom’s observations.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Applications 04-058, 04-059, 04-060, and 04-061, for proposed driveways, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road; the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. As part of the driveway applications, it is stipulated that the
Road Agent will be notified that drainage deficiencies may be present on some of the driveways. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
CURTIS HILL, LLC
Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing/Design Review
Major Subdivision/7 Lots
Location: Old Coach Road
Tax Map/Lot #10/3
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Art Siciliano, LLS, and applicant Michael Sullivan. An abutter present was Gary Lincoln. Also present were George St. John, Sr., and George St. John, Jr.
Art Siciliano, LLS, stated the site was the former Wildwood Campground and was located on the south side of Old Coach Road. He added that the total acreage was 39.19 acres and the applicant proposed to subdivide the property into seven lots with 6 lots having 200 feet of frontage and one back lot with 50 feet of frontage. Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that all wetlands and soils had been delineated and were shown on the plan. He also pointed the location of an old office building and noted that a pavilion and pool existed on Lot #3/5 of the plan.
Art Siciliano, LLS, said that test pits had been dug for each lot. He added that changes were made to the plans per the Coordinator’s checklist items and he had brought revised plans if Board members desire copies.
Art Siciliano, LLS, said an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would be needed for the proposed driveway for Lot #10/3-8 as a pond was located nearby.
Mr. Siciliano, LLS, requested a waiver for the Watershed Outline and Drainage Computations believing it was not necessary for this project as no new road was being constructed for the subdivision. The Chairman wished to wait until a site walk was done before this waiver request was considered.
Art Siciliano, LLS, then submitted the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to the Coordinator.
CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.
Bob Furey asked if Lot #10/3-7 was the proposed back lot. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that it was Lot #10/3-8 and noted its frontage on the plan. Gordon Carlstrom asked if it was acceptable for the 200 foot square to be located in the buffer area of the pond for Lot #10/3-8. The Coordinator said the 200 foot square could be located in wetlands and within the side setback but not the front setback.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if a cistern requirement was still in place for subdivisions proposed in this area as in a neighboring subdivision along with Lot #7/73 owned by the Kerstings. He noted that although the Town ordinance now called for sprinklers he wondered if the cistern requirement was still part of the language for that area. The Chairman said that they had not heard back from the Fire Wards but that sprinklers were generally recommended which would take the place of a cistern requirement. The Coordinator explained that the issue concerned three remaining lots on Butterfield Mill Road from the prior subdivision that did not have sprinklers. She explained that during prior discussion Lot #7/73 was deemed a separate property from Lot #10/3 and
it was agreed at that time that any further subdivision of Lot #10/3 would be subject to the major provisions of the Subdivision Regulations. Gordon Carlstrom asked if that stipulation included a cistern requirement. The Coordinator said it would if that was still considered to be in effect. The Chairman clarified that the issue was there were still a few homes in the area of the proposed subdivision without the benefit of fire fighting water supply. He then asked if this issue would be addressed by the Fire Wards. The Coordinator replied that the Fire Wards could make a recommendation but the Planning Board would ultimately make such a decision. Gordon Carlstrom wondered if there were notes for Tax Map/Lot #7/73 that outlined the agreement made. The Coordinator said she would look into this. James Nordstrom stated that any preexisting agreement would need to be considered and compounded with recommendations of the Fire Wards.
Don Duhaime asked if the Subdivision Regulations stated that both cistern and sprinklers could be required for a house. The Chairman said they could be, based on sound reasoning and that the requirement was intentionally open ended to serve special circumstances.
James Nordstrom asked if common driveways were proposed for the lots. Arthur Siciliano, LLS, said three common driveways were proposed between Lot #’s 10/3-2 & 3, 10/3-4 & 5 and 10/3-6 & 7 along with a single drive way for the back lot. The Chairman asked for a better illustration of the common driveway locations which Art Siciliano, LLS, then highlighted on the plan. The Chairman asked the length of the common portion of the driveways and Art Siciliano, LLS, replied the length was approximately thirty feet. The Chairman asked if the common driveways were to be located on the lot line and Art Siciliano, LLS, said they were. The Chairman asked if each lot was capable of supporting its own driveway and if there were wetlands on
any of the frontages. Mr. Siciliano, LLS, said the Lots were capable of supporting their own driveways and all wetlands were located behind the squares for each lot.
Abutter Gary Lincoln asked if the applicant intended to use the Class VI portion of Greenfield Road as a driveway. Art Siciliano, LLS, said they did not. Gary Lincoln thought installing a driveway next to Greenfield Road would be a tight squeeze and Art Siciliano, LLS, agreed.
CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.
Bob Furey asked what the proposed driveway design would be in order to gain access to the buildable area on Lot #3/5. Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that the proposed driveway would be 300 to 400 feet in length in order to access the building area and that he put the square for that lot in the area where the test pit was dug not knowing the exact location of the build.
James Nordstrom asked if ground survey or aerial topography was done on the
subdivision site. Art Siciliano, LLS, said the area between the road and the wetland was done on -site and the back land was done by USGS. James Nordstrom commented on the high number of wetland flags that needed to be located and Art Siciliano, LLS, agreed there were many.
Bob Furey asked if it was feasible to run a driveway parallel to the setback line. James Nordstrom replied that he knew of nothing that disallowed that design.
The Chairman asked what else needed to be addressed on a preliminary application. The Coordinator said a site walk should be scheduled. The Chairman asked if the Conservation Commission had indicated when they could attend the site walk. The Coordinator replied they could usually fit Board planned site walks into their schedules. A site walk was scheduled for August 5, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. The Chairman asked that the applicant make sure the driveway entrances were properly flagged and wetlands were marked. Art Siciliano, LLS, said this would be done.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn Curtis Hill, LLC, Preliminary Hearing/Design Review, Major Subdivision/7 Lots, Location: Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #10/3, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to August 24, 2004, at 7:15 p.m. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
9. A copy of a memo dated July 23, 2004, Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, to the Steep Slopes Committee, Planning Board Members and Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant, Re: time line for steep slopes ordinance, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that this memo dealt with the time line needed to discuss the steep slopes ordinance in order to be prepared for the public hearing for zoning changes at the end of the year.
10. Daily Road inspection reports dated May 28th, June 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 25th, from Dufresne-Henry, Re: Highland Hills, were distributed for the Board’s information.
11. Daily road inspection reports dated June 14th, 15th, 17th, 23rd, 24th, and 25th, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Waldorf Estates, were distributed for the Board’s information.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
The Coordinator explained that Seth Potter of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., informed her that as construction moved forward on the road rear sections were being stabilized.
12. A memo dated July 27, 2004, from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Peter Hogan,
Planning Board, Re: Start-Up of 2005-2010 Capital Improvements Plan Process, for the Board’s review and discussion. (No Copies)
The Coordinator explained that the Planning Board had not received copies of this memo as there were no Planning CIP items and that they had already discussed who would sit on this committee for the Planning Board.
13. A copy of a letter dated July 27, 2004, from Roger Noonan, to the Planning Board Chairman, Re: letter of resignation from the Planning Board, was distributed for the Board’s information.
There was consensus from the Board to accept this resignation.
14. A copy of a letter dated July 27, 2004, from Roger Noonan, to Peter Hogan, Chairman, Re: amendment to site plan, Tax Map/Lot #1/50, Middle Branch Produce, LLC, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if an amended site plan would be required from the applicant. The Coordinator explained that this letter could be attached to the existing site plan and serve as the amendment. She added that if the Board agreed, the applicant felt he was ready for a compliance hearing of the site. Gordon Carlstrom asked what changes had been made to the site plan. The Coordinator stated that hours of operation were the main alteration and usage was changed.
The Chairman did not think a site walk was necessary and thought that compliance could be verified by a drive by viewing before the Board’s next meeting. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the letter and sketch sufficed. The Chairman went on to say that he felt the plan design went above and beyond the intent for agricultural use.
The Coordinator noted that a compliance hearing could be scheduled for August 24, 2004. The Board agreed
15. The Coordinator stated that R.J. Moreau had a scheduled Planning Board hearing on August 10, 2004, to request Conditional Use Permits for two driveways on Inkberry Road. She asked if the Board wished to do a site walk for this area before or after the hearing. The Board scheduled a site walk for August 5, 2004, at 7 p.m.
FILLMORE, JEFFREY & JAQUELINE
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/4 Lots
Location: Hopkins Road
Tax Map/Lot #13/16
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Ray Shea of Sandford Survey. Abutters present were Kevin and Jennifer Bourgeois.
Ray Shea submitted revised site plans to the Board with additions made. He stated that the property was located on the south side of Hopkins Road and east of Salisbury Road bordering the Mont Vernon, NH town line. He added that 18 acres with an existing house were located in New Boston and 5.6 acres in Mont Vernon were also owned by the applicant and attached to this property. Ray Shea stated that the applicant proposed to create two front lots and two backlots, each with their own driveway.
Ray Shea noted that the applicant had applied for and obtained State Subdivision Approval. He added that changes were made to the plans according to comments from the Coordinator. Ray Shea stated that the final note on the plan was added to describe the cistern locations as two within a quarter mile of the site. He added that the professional seal of the Wetlands Scientist was now on the plan and monuments to be set were also added.
Ray Shea stated that sediment control on site was addressed for a proposed driveway on the eastern back lot that was located in close proximity to wetlands. He noted that the plan showed silt fencing and erosion control measures for that specific location and that project wide Erosion and Sediment Control Plans could be considered depending on the Board’s requirements.
Ray Shea explained that because the lot located south of the Town line in Mont Vernon would not be a building lot and was attached to property on the New Boston side it should not be an issue for the plan.
The Chairman asked if any abutters wished to comment. Kevin Bourgeois stated that his house faced Lot #13/16-1 and was concerned that if the tree line between the two properties was cleared he would be viewing the side of a house built on that lot. He noted that Jeff Fillmore had mentioned to him that there would be covenants for Lot #13/16-1 because it was near his property. Kevin Bourgeois further added that he would like to have a 50 to 75 foot courtesy buffer between his property and Lot #13/16-1. The Chairman asked Ray Shea if a courtesy buffer was planned and Ray Shea said he had not yet spoken with the applicant on this matter. Kevin Bourgeois added that Jeff Fillmore had said he did not intend to cut the tree line but wondered if
he should still request a buffer as one had been required for a subdivision his friend had been involved with. The Chairman was unsure if a no cut zone would be required by the Town and thought Ray Shea should speak with the applicant.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if the logging road on the plan was a Class VI road and Ray Shea said it was not.
Jennifer Bourgeois asked how many driveways were being proposed. Ray Shea replied that 3 new driveways were proposed. Jennifer Bourgeois stated she was surprised to hear of a
FILLMORE, cont.
new subdivision proposal for this area as the Fillmores had been so concerned about a neighboring application. Ray Shea said that the applicant proposed a new driveway off the existing logging road and two new driveways for the backlots. He added that there could be a common driveway to the two backlots but it was not designed that way at this time. James Nordstrom asked what the grade for the backlot driveways would be. Ray Shea explained that with a cut at the top and fill at the bottom, the grade would be less than the required 10% max.
James Nordstrom then asked what the heavy dark line represented on the plan’s topography. Ray Shea replied that this was a soil line. Bob Furey asked what the circles on the plan represented. Ray Shea replied that there was some confusion as to the location of the Town line from the previous survey so the area was surveyed by GPS tri corners and some odd markings were established that did not fall within the line. He noted that these markings could be added to the legend on the plans.
The Chairman asked if the driveway application fees and Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan had been submitted. Ray Shea replied that the fees were submitted and a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan was submitted for the proposed driveway of the eastern back lot but not the overall site.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waiver requests for Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies and to accept what was presented for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Travis Daniels MOVED to accept the application of Jeffrey and Jaqueline Fillmore, Major Subdivision, 4 Lots, Location: Hopkins Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/16, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
A site walk was scheduled for August 5, 2004, at 7:45 p.m. +/-. The Chairman commented that the Conservation Commission was interested in attending this site walk.
The Chairman asked if the existing cisterns on Hopkins and Turnpike Road were shown on the plans. Ray Shea said they were not but were referenced in Note #16. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if that was sufficient and she said it was. Gordon Carlstrom asked how long the backlot driveways would be. Ray Shea stated that there was 450 feet from the right-of-way to the backline of the front lots and the driveways themselves would be 500-600 feet long.
The Coordinator noted that while the land in Mont Vernon was proposed to be added to the land in New Boston, the statute (RSA 674:53) seemed to infer that the Mont Vernon Planning Board be given the plans as well as New Boston. She asked if she should verify this with Bill Drescher, Esq., and the Board agreed.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn Jeffrey and Jaqueline Fillmore, Major Subdivision/4 Lots, Location: Hopkins Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/16, Residential-
FILLMORE, cont.
Agricultural “R-A” District, to August 24, 2004, at 7:45 p.m. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 8:50 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.
BRADLEY WILDE EDUCATIONAL VENTURES, LLC (owner)
LYNN STRONG (applicant)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Non-Residential Site Plan Review
Rising Generation Daycare/Expansion of Existing Daycare Building
Location: 643 North 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. Abutters present were Don and Rosemary Sanborn.
The Coordinator wished to point out that the applicant was her sister-in-law and Bo Strong was her father-in-law. She noted that the Board had previously determined that her role in the plan review was not an issue, however, she would recuse herself for tonight’s hearing if they felt it appropriate. Gordon Carlstrom asked if she had reviewed the plan herself. The Coordinator replied that she reviewed the plan with the Planning Board Assistant. The Board had no concerns with the Coordinator remaining at the table.
Ray Shea stated that the site plan proposed an addition to a daycare facility located on southwest side of Route 114 before the Weare town line. He explained that on the current site the driveway entered off Route 114 to a building of 5,000 s.f. Ray Shea said the circular portion of the current driveway allowed for children to be dropped off and there was additional parking on the northern part of the property. He noted that the proposal dealt with doubling the capacity of the daycare which was now for 80 children. Ray Shea stated that the proposed addition would be 2,200 s.f. and would allow for ultimate capacity up to 175 children. He noted that the applicant was currently looking to increase capacity to 150. He further pointed out that
because the building and leeching field were located in the front of the site and added parking was to the north there would not be much physical change to the property.
Ray Shea said that the Driveway Permit was being reviewed by the NH DOT and the septic application was being prepared.
Gordon Carlstrom asked what the total acreage was for the site and Ray Shea replied it was 2.7 acres.
Ray Shea noted that changes made to the plan involved adding the name of an abutter’s husband, pavement widths for the driveway and turnaround area, and the approximate location of a structure across the street from the site. He added that the closest abutter was located 350 feet away from the site and the remaining abutters were not located within the scope of the plan.
Don Sanborn asked how the current parking lot would be altered. Ray Shea replied that
WILDE/STRONG, cont.
two additional spaces were proposed. Rosemary Sanborn said their question stemmed from the fact that wildlife roamed that area and their concern that construction could drive the animals away.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if the existing structure had fire sprinklers and if they were also proposed for the addition. Ray Shea said this was the case. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the plan met all Life Safety Codes and Ray Shea said it did.
James Nordstrom asked if the culverts shown in the turnaround portion of the driveway already existed and Ray Shea said they did. Ray Shea explained that physical changes to the site
involved the additional structure, two additional parking spaces and relocation of the septic system to the front of the lot.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if the septic system would need to be relocated. Ray Shea said it would need to be moved to the front of the property. Gordon Carlstrom then asked if any of
the play area would need to be moved. Lynn Strong replied that the play area would move slightly up toward the front of the property.
James Nordstrom asked what the design flow was proposed for the septic system. Ray Shea said that it was 1,800 to 2,000 gallons per day and that a design had been drafted but not
submitted. Bob Furey asked if the flow calculation was based on 175 children. Ray Shea said that it was in order that the applicant would not need to revise the plan in the future should capacity increase to that number.
Gordon Carlstrom asked for a review of the well easement from the abutting lot. Ray Shea replied the purpose of the easement was to avoid drilling a new well on the site and that the abutter on Lot #3/52-25 had a copy of this easement and was prepared to sign it pending review by his attorney. He added that once signed, the well easement would be submitted.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if any additional landscaping was planned for the project. Ray Shea replied that the applicant had not planned to increase the landscaping. He noted that the front of the property was lawn and the septic system was located underneath.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Bradley Wilde Educational Services, LLC (owner) and Lynn Strong (applicant), Rising Generation Daycare/Expansion of Existing Daycare Building, Location: 643 North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/49, Commercial “Com” District, as complete. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the legal language for the well easement would need to be submitted for review by Town Counsel. Ray Shea asked if this was necessary as the agreement was between two land owners. Gordon Carlstrom agreed. The Chairman said they would check with Town Counsel and if legal review was not necessary the applicant would be informed.
The Chairman clarified that the Driveway Permit needed amending. Ray Shea said this was the case and it was being reviewed by the State.
In lieu of a site walk, Gordon Carlstrom thought that if areas were properly color flagged a drive-by would suffice. The Board agreed.
WILDE/STRONG, cont.
Travis Daniels MOVED to adjourn Bradley Wilde Educational Services, LLC (owner) and Lynn Strong (applicant), Rising Generation Daycare/Expansion of Existing Daycare Building, Location: 643 North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/49, Commercial “Com” District, to August 24, 2004, at 8:15 p.m. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
16. A copy of the formula for offsite road improvements by Indian Falls, LLC, was distributed to the Board. The Coordinator explained that this formula required the
Board’s verification.
Gordon Carlstrom stated that Bedford Road was highly traveled. James Nordstrom agreed and said there was also potential for further development along this road. He noted that the fair share calculation was about ¼ what the applicant was willing to pay.
Bob Furey asked if the funding from offsite road improvements would be placed into
Town savings until needed. James Nordstrom stated that this funding would be dedicated to future upgrades.
Gordon Carlstrom stated that John Riendeau, Road Agent, planned to get to this project in the next couple of years.
The Chairman stated that the Board’s consensus deemed the formula was correct.
PAUL MORIN
Subdivision Proposal
Location: Greenfield Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/74
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Mike Dahlberg, LLS, and Paul Morin.
Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the applicant owned the Timber Ridge subdivision which had been preliminarily approved in 1988. He added this approval had lapsed and the applicant wished to resurrect that development plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, explained that upon viewing the Town’s current regulations it was understood that because Greenfield Road was not paved in front of the proposed subdivision and then became a Class VI road, the applicant would need the Board’s input on what major issues needed to be addressed before submission of an application. He was interested in offsite improvements, Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies, etc.
James Nordstrom asked if the proposal was for 6 lots and Mike Dahlberg, LLS, said this was correct. Gordon Carlstrom thought road improvements to Greenfield Road would be a requirement. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, asked Paul Morin where the paved portion of Greenfield
MORIN, cont.
Road ended. Paul Morin replied that it ended at the house lot next to his which had a farm and pond on the site. Gordon Carlstrom noted that because the pavement ended approximately 200 feet from the proposed subdivision site the improvements may include grubbing and clearing. He asked where the turn around was located for the Town maintained portion of the road. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted the location on the conceptual plan.
The Chairman felt sprinklers for the home would be required and thought a copy of the
conceptual plan should be sent to the Fire Wards.
Gordon Carlstrom noted that the lot located on the left side of the plan seemed to have steep slopes. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, said that there were moderately steep slopes in that area that might look even steeper because the plan was drawn to 100 scale. He then noted on the plan where the driveway was proposed to enter that lot. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the driveway could have an alternate approach if a cul-de-sac was included on the road but was not sure if it would complicate the design of the plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, agreed that this could be done but was not sure if Town regulations required that a driveway on a Class V road approach the house through its lot frontage. The Chairman asked if the driveway had to be constructed on the
frontage portion of the lot or just needed to have that capability. The Coordinator replied that the lot needed to be able to have its own driveway but the Board could allow construction in a location other than the lot’s frontage. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that there was 50 feet of frontage on that lot so it would be able to support a driveway on its frontage. Gordon Carlstrom added that the driveway could also enter the lot from the Class VI portion of the road, however, the applicant would then need a waiver to release the Town from liability.
James Nordstrom stated that regarding the applicant’s original inquiry on what studies would be required, his opinion was that Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies would probably not be sought for a 6 lot subdivision. He noted that such studies were usually required for larger subdivisions of 20 lots or more. The Chairman agreed and stated that the applicant could request waivers for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, wanted to clarify that the surveys for roadway improvements, right-of-ways and driveways would need to be expanded on the plan. The Chairman agreed.
Gordon Carlstrom said he was still concerned about the easterly lot’s building envelope and its ability to support an acceptable driveway grade. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that they would have that driveway more specifically designed to address the grade issues on that lot and if needed would alter the lot line. He added that at a 100 scale plan the grades of the other driveways were most acceptable and they would conform to the Town regulations in any case. The Chairman asked if it would be more appropriate to construct the driveways off the Class VI portion of Greenfield Road which could be pursued with the Selectmen. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, thought that in order to gain access from the Class VI road it would require an upgrade. The
applicant added that he would be concerned about the steepness of that road and the lot owner’s responsibility for winter plowing and preferred the alternate choice of the driveway located off the cul-de-sac. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the applicant would still need to prove the feasibility of constructing the upper driveway off a Class V road.
Gordon Carlstrom asked what 2 acres equaled in square footage. Mike Dahlberg, LLS,
MORIN, cont.
replied that two acres was equivalent to 87,120 s.f.
The Chairman asked if the Mike Dahlberg, LLS, now had a better idea of how to proceed. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that he did and would update the wetlands information, topography and roadway design. The Chairman asked the length of the proposed cul-de-sac. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that it was 1,090 feet. The Chairman noted that the applicant would need to request a waiver on that item as the Town’s current maximum allowed length was 600 feet. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, thought that the applicant’s waiver request would likely prevail because there was no further development potential beyond the cul-de-sac. Gordon Carlstrom asked where the Town property was located in relation to the plan and Mike Dahlberg, LLS, pointed to this
location on the plan. James Nordstrom commented that there had been recent discussion that suggested a change to Town regulations that would increase the maximum length allowed for cul-de-sacs. The Chairman noted that waivers for extensions under the current regulations had not often been denied in the past. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, asked if the preferred standard cul-de-sac design was for a straight approach with a center island. The Chairman said this was the case.
SUSANA LECLAIR REVOCABLE TRUST
Subdivision Proposal
Location: Bedford Road
Tax Map/Lot #9/24
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Mike Dahlberg, LLS, and Bob LeClair.
Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that this proposal dealt with the remaining land of the LBC General Contractors' subdivision and noted the placement of the proposed lots in the areas of Baker Lane, Bedford Road and Wilson Hill Road. He noted the areas of the plans that would require dredge and fill permits and updates to two wetland crossings. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that he assumed Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies might be required and that the Conservation Commission would be involved in the wetlands issues of this plan. He added that Dredge and Fill Permits and Conditional Use Permits would also play a role in the project.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if the green lines on the plan were seasonal streams. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the dashed lines were wetlands and there were a series of solid lines that represented the woods road. Gordon Carlstrom further asked if there was enough contiguous dry land on the back lots and Mike Dahlberg, LLS, said that there was at least 1.5 acres of contiguous uplands on all lots.
Gordon Carlstrom inquired about the location of the 1.5 acre contiguous upland on the front lot next to Baker Lane. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted this area on the plan and stated that the drainage calculations were based on surveys performed in March and April of this year.
James Nordstrom asked if dredge and fill would be required for the southern lot off
LECLAIR, cont.
Wilson Hill Road as it did not appear that there was enough land between the road and the wetlands to support construction. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, agreed that there was not enough land in that location and a wetland crossing would be required.
The Coordinator wished to note that the 1996 subdivision plan for this site included a note that stated the lower access south of Lot #9/24-2 would have no further wetland impact. She clarified that the applicant would need to research this item with DES and Mike Dahlberg, LLS, agreed, stating that it was a frequent procedure.
Mike Dahlberg, LLS, asked if offsite road fees would be required of the applicant given the good condition of Bedford Road in the area of the site. James Nordstrom replied that fair
share assessment calculations would be used to determine what the fee amount should be. The Chairman stated that the typical fee was $1,500. James Nordstrom added that there was a lot of land on Bedford Road with development potential. Gordon Carlstrom added that Baker Lane and Wilson Hill Road should be calculated into the formula as well, although Baker Lane would not see much future development.
Bob Furey asked what the scale was on the plan and Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied it was 100 scale. Bob Furey then questioned the accessibility of the south easterly lot as there were wetland areas on either side. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, said that because this lot was located near the area of Old Bedford Road there should be enough area to access the lot through that location.
Gordon Carlstrom asked if the fact that Baker Lane was a Class V dirt road and not full width would affect the back lot. The Coordinator replied that Baker Lane was considered a Class V road to Dick Moody’s house. The Coordinator asked what the Board’s opinion was on the configuration of the back lot and its frontage where its strip ran parallel with, rather than perpendicular to, the road. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the back lot required 50 feet of frontage on the road. The Chairman thought this layout suggested a stacking configuration. The Coordinator asked the proposed location of the house for this lot and Mike Dahlberg, LLS, showed the location on the plans, adding that he thought there was more than 50 feet of frontage for the
lot. The Coordinator replied that this could only be ascertained from the language of the discontinuance of the road which stated from the Moody house to Bog Brook Road. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, added that it could also be determined at the point in the road where the Town stopped plowing. The Chairman noted that the Town stopped plowing where it was convenient to do so, not where it was necessary.
Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated his client was trying to maximize his land and explained that they were positioning back lots according to where existing houses where located. The Chairman said that this depended on what road was being used for frontage. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that Baker Lane was being used as such. The Chairman then thought that the backlot would qualify as a side lot and not a back lot. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, said that he had not heard that term used before and asked if it was in the Subdivision Regulations. The Chairman reiterated that a back lot sat behind a front lot and the lot in question did not conform to that term. Gordon Carlstrom agreed and stated that in order for the lot to qualify as a back lot a portion of its
acreage would need to extend down to Bedford Road. The Chairman concurred. Gordon Carlstrom noted the backlots on Wilson Hill Road qualified as backlots because
LECLAIR, cont.
they were behind a front lot and both had frontages on the same road. The Chairman added that the main reason the Wilson Hill Road lots qualified as backlots was because they were behind existing houses. Gordon Carlstrom noted the example of side stacking configurations that occurred on Chestnut Hill. James Nordstrom asked if the Zoning Regulations gave a definition for a back lot. The Coordinator thought that the Subdivision Regulations provided a definition for a backland lot. James Nordstrom read the definition as: “…shall mean a lot using backland, thereby, being behind a road frontage lot. A backlot shall have fifty feet (50') of road frontage, and maintain a corridor of 50' in width, minimally, extending to the main body of the lot.” The Chairman
still felt that the lot was a side lot which was not allowed. Gordon Carlstrom agreed and said that the Chestnut Hill stacking scenario initiated the Town’s vigilance to avoid that scenario in future lot configurations. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, accepted the opinion of the Board and added that he preferred to have issues of this nature addressed sooner rather than once the application process had begun. Bob LeClair asked if there was more frontage on Baker Lane if the lot could then qualify as a front lot. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the curved portion of Baker Lane might stop the frontage for the lot at that point. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, agreed that they would no longer connect to the road but said right-of-ways along Baker Lane could be researched to confirm this. James Nordstrom asked why the back lot could not be extended toward Old Bedford Road. Gordon Carlstrom pointed out that the land in that area was owned by the Town.
Bob LeClair inquired about the area in the bottom square of the plans and asked if that could be considered a two acre lot. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, said it could not be because it did not have 1.5 acres of contiguous dry land.
At 10:00 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:
|