Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 09/28/04
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan.  Present were regular members James Nordstrom, Travis Daniels, Bob Furey; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom and alternate Don Duhaime.  Also present were Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown, and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, were Bill Weston, Paula Bellemore, Willard Dodge, Karen Heselton, Kim Burkhamer, Brandy Mitroff, Dan MacDonald, Wayne Blassberg, Mark Moser, PE, Christine Quirk, Barry and Wayne Charrest, Lou Maynard, Eric Farris, John Reindeau, Kenny Bolton, Julie and Matt Dillon, Art Siciliano, LLS, George St. John, Kevin St. John, Dave and Karen Kersting and Sarah Hogan.
 
Presentation by the Steep Slopes Committee of the draft for Steep Slopes Conservation District Ordinance
        Kim Burkhamer of the Steep Slopes Committee stated this Committee was a sub- committee from the Action Group Committee of New Boston Speaks.  She added that in there work to review and update chapters within the Master Plan it was noted that enough language was included in the current Master Plan that could support the writing of a Steeps Slopes Ordinance.  Kim Burkhamer stated the Committee had received a great deal of information from Planning Coordinator, Nicola Strong and additional advice from James Nordstrom regarding language used by surrounding towns in their own steep slopes information and now had a draft of an ordinance for the Board’s review which was modeled after the Town’s Wetland Ordinance so that wording could be similar between chapters.  She added that copies of this draft had been forwarded to the ZBA, Conservation Commission and Piscataquog Watershed Association for their review and comment.  Kim Burkhamer noted that Bob Todd, LLS, had been present at the Committee’s last meeting and had one comment regarding water run off into areas of steep slopes but overall, was pleased with the draft.
        Brandy Mitroff wished to clarify that the draft of the Steep Slopes Ordinance was modeled after the Wetlands Ordinance, which was currently in the Zoning law, and Kim Burkhamer said this was the case.  Kim Burkhamer pointed out that the map mentioned in the draft ordinance was created by Southern New Hampshire Planning and could be referenced in the office of the Planning Department.
        Willard Dodge asked if the Board had reviewed the draft of the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  The Chairman replied that he had reviewed the draft and thought it was very good.  
        Brandy Mitroff stated that Bob Todd, LLS, had suggested along with James Nordstrom that qualified definitions be included within the Ordinance.  James Nordstrom clarified that it was noted that surrounding towns had not clearly defined what a steep or moderately steep slope entailed which meant that small areas whose elevations changed to 25% or steeper would fall into the overlay district.  He added that the Town had included length and height requirements for such areas of land so that the case for a flat parcel with minor undulations under 25% would not be subject to the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  James Nordstrom stated that the Ordinance was more geared toward hillside development and that very steep or moderately steep slopes could only qualify as such if their grade changes were greater than 20 feet in length.  He added that
this eliminated smaller up and down hills being subjected to the Ordinance for which it was not
intended.  
Steep Slopes Ordinance Draft, cont.

        James Nordstrom summarized that the most significant effect of the Steep Slopes Ordinance would be the identification for subdivision development of areas with slopes of 25% or greater out of the “Y” area similar to the “Y” area of the Wetland Conservation District and would cause lots and sensitive slope areas to become increasingly larger over time.  The Chairman asked James Nordstrom if he felt the Ordinance would be strong enough to be enforced.   James Nordstrom believed it would be.  The Chairman asked how a steep slope area could be spared from becoming a gravel pit and later a conventional subdivision.  James Nordstrom replied that this Ordinance did not offer that protection and the Committee had discussed that issue in depth.  He added that in order for the Ordinance to be written in a meaningful way that issue along with some others would need the input of the Planning Board, ZBA, and the Selectmen.  James Nordstrom further added that he did not think there was a mechanism in place to prevent the gravel pit scenario and that final judgment would rest with the different boards of the Town.
        Brandy Mitroff pointed out that James Nordstrom or Willard Dodge had previously noted that although the Town wanted to prevent graveling of steep slope areas, they also regulated proper grading and graveling of those slopes, which created a “Catch 22” scenario.  Kim Burkhamer added that in the Natural Resource chapter of the Master Plan gravel and sand pits were listed as such and, therefore, the Town could not deny someone from graveling along a steep slope as gravel beds usually followed those contours.  The Chairman stated that graveling could be considered appropriate in certain areas of the Town while inappropriate for others, such as alongside a river.  Kim Burkhamer noted that she was unsure if the present ordinance for graveling addressed that issue, however, the Committee did not feel it was appropriate to have it addressed in the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  Willard Dodge stated that the goal of the Committee was to direct the purpose of the Steep Slopes Ordinance toward building and development.   
        Willard Dodge commented that he was impressed by the diversity of the Committee and how well they worked together toward a common goal for the Town.  He added that although he was generally pleased with the overall result of the draft he was disappointed that language was omitted which would address water run offs from new development to existing adjacent properties.  He read some text from the language used by another town: “No new drainage ways shall be created or additional run off directed to adjacent properties unless necessary easements are obtained.”  Willard Dodge stated that Nicola Strong thought such language was included in the Subdivision Regulations but he had not been able to locate it.  He asked for the Planning Board’s consideration in including such text within the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  Brandy Mitroff commented that even if that text was included in another regulation she did not think it inappropriate to also insert it within the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  The Chairman asked if there was a particular reason that such text was left out of the draft.  Willard Dodge replied that Nicola Strong believed it was already mentioned in the Subdivision Regulations and he had seen text within those regulations that addressed storm water run off and sediment control but had not read anything that would prevent an individual from disposing clean water from a development project onto existing adjacent properties.  The Chairman wondered if such text did not exist

Steep Slopes Ordinance Draft, cont.

because it was assumed such action would never occur.  Willard Dodge noted that assumptions did not make a law.  Brandy Mitroff stated that even if that text was included in some other location it might be helpful to have it repeated within the Steep Slopes Ordinance for easier reference.  Paula Bellemore noted the issue of the switch back driveways on properties located on Bog Brook Road where drainage swales were causing run off onto other lots.  The Chairman recalled that upon checking that issue it was determined that the run off continued on the property owner’s land until it met the Town right-of-way.  Kim Burkhamer thought the inclusion for water run off language was similar to the suggestion made by Bob Todd, LLS, at the Committee’s last meeting.  The Chairman stated he had no issue with including such text within the Steep Slopes Ordinance and James Nordstrom agreed.  Kim Burkhamer noted that the area of inclusion that Nicola Strong had referred to within the Subdivision Regulations was “Storm Water Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan” which would be applied to the Conditional Use Permit for an applicant and cover the management of water run off.  The Chairman stated that even if the language was redundant within two areas he did not have an issue with including the text within the Steep Slopes Ordinance.
        Bill Weston wished to note that within the current Cluster Regulations there was a definition for steep slopes that was much more specific that what was included in the draft of the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  He added that if the Ordinance was adopted that conflict would need to be addressed.
        The Chairman asked if the draft of the Steep Slopes Ordinance was ready for legal review.  The Planning Assistant replied that it would be reviewed by Town Counsel once it was in final format and that public input was still required.  The Chairman wanted discussion of the draft scheduled on the Board’s agenda as soon as possible.  The Planning Assistant replied she could schedule public discussion for the meeting of October 12th and 26th at 2004, at 7:00 p.m.
         Paula Bellemore noted some minor adjustments she thought were needed to text within the draft as follows:
        -Page 3, Section E, Paragraph #2, line #4- “…provided minimum non-slope area…”  
        should perhaps be changed to “provided minimum flat-line area…” for consistency.
        -Section G, Paragraph #1 (Exemptions)- The language regarding subdivisions being        
        subject to the ordinance prior to its adoption needs to be clarified further with language to   the effect: “after posting and prior to adoption”.  The Chairman said this language was an example of why the Quirk’s had to file for a special exception with their campground application.  Brandy Mitroff noted that the above language was not included in the Campground Ordinance but was included in the Steep Slopes Ordinance.   The Chairman asked why that statement was included at all.  Kim Burkhamer explained that the exemption was written with information provided by Nicola Strong and inferred that any applications that fell within the 120 day period between posting of the ordinance and its vote was subject to the terms of that ordinance if it passed.  The Planning Assistant wished to clarify that applications filed prior to the posting would be exempt.  The Chairman agreed. Paula Bellemore commented that she raised the point for clarification because the standard wording seemed misleading.  Brandy Mitroff suggested that Bill Drescher, Esq., review the wording.
Steep Slopes Ordinance Draft, cont.

        -Section K- The definitions of very steep and moderately steep slope ranges are redundant with very steep being greater than 25% and moderately steep being 15%-25%.  Kim Burkhamer suggested ranges of 15% to 25% and greater than 25% would better clarify the ranges.
        Paula Bellemore concluded that if voted in, she hoped the Planning Board would use the information provided by the revised Steep Slopes Ordinance to place stricter requirements on building envelope locations in order to protect sensitive areas of land within the Town.

DILLON, JULIE                                                   Adjourned from 08/24/04   
Non-Residential Site Plan Review/Boarding & 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 and Matt Dillon.  No abutters were in attendance.
        Julie Dillon submitted copies of the revised design for the manure storage area shown on her site plan.  The Chairman noted that other changes that had been made to the original site plan since the site walk held with members of the Board and involved the elimination of the driveway turnaround circle, flood line notations, hours of operation and a sign that would advise clients not to back out of the property onto the main road.  He asked if the walls depicted for the manure storage area were solid.  Julie Dillon replied they were rough cut two by fours.  The Chairman then asked if the applicant would be operating the loader to remove the manure from the storage area and if the walls would be built high enough to accommodate the loader bucket.  Julie Dillon replied that she would be operating the loader and the walls would be approximately six feet in height.  Matt Dillon added that the roof of the manure storage area would be at least ten feet in height so that the loader could remove materials efficiently.
        The Chairman noted he would like two items noted on the site plan as follows:
1.      The maximum height of the manure storage area should not exceed the height of the barn on the site.
2.      The notation on the plans that stated who would be responsible for plowing should be eliminated so as not to limit the applicant’s options for that employment.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Non-Residential Site Plan for Julie Dillon, to     
        operate a boarding and riding stable from the existing barn at 422 Riverdale Road, Tax  
        Map/Lot #3/49, subject to:
            
        CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1.      Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all  of the checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
2.      Execution of a Site Review Agreement.
DILLON, JULIE, cont.

The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be December 1, 2004, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board.  Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a
written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on
notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
        
        CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1.      All of the site improvements, including construction of the manure storage area, are to be completed per the approved site plan;
2.      The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing and the opening of the business on the site;
3.      Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted prior to the compliance hearing;
4.      A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of Permit to Operate of Certificate of Occupancy, or both.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be December 1, 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.
        Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        Julie Dillon asked if she now had conditional approval to do business on the site.  The Chairman replied that this was not the case and explained that once all necessary work had been completed on the site according to the site plan, a compliance hearing would be held and she would then be permitted to do business.
        James Nordstrom asked the Planning Assistant if copies of the notice of decision would be provided.  The Planning Assistant said they would be.
        
CURTIS HILL, LLC                                Adjourned from 08/24/04   
Work Session/Design Review
Major Subdivision/7 Lots
Location: Old Coach Road
Tax Map/Lot #10/3
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Art Siciliano,               
CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.
        
LLS, who represented the applicant.  Abutters and interested parties present were George St. John, Kevin St. John, and Dave and Karen Kersting.
        Art Siciliano, LLS, asked if the Fire Wards had given their input to the cistern question raised at the last meeting.  The Chairman stated they had and read the letter aloud: “The Board of Fire Wards has reviewed the letter sent to the Board of Fire Wards in regard to the inquiry of the potential for an acceptable fire protection water supply for the subdivision of St. John property on Butterfield Mill Road, Tax Map/Lot 10/4.  The response of the board is as follows:  The above named major subdivision of the fifth lot requires fire protection for the existing previously subdivided lots and new subdivision.  This protection of all the lots is the responsibility of the developer either with sprinklers for preexisting and new subdivisions or a cistern.”
        The Chairman asked Fire Chief, Dan MacDonald if he could review the Fire Wards response and further explain their decision.  Dan MacDonald explained that they had arrived at three options: 1. Put a cistern on Butterfield Mill Road to cover those lots affected as they were located further away. 2. Put sprinklers in the new subdivision homes and the existing homes in question. 3. Install two cisterns; one for the new subdivision and one to cover the preexisting homes on Butterfield Mill Road.  The Chairman asked where the proposed cistern on Butterfield Mill Road would be located.  Dan MacDonald replied that he did not know what land was available on that road but the cistern would need to be appropriately placed so that it could provide adequate protection to the lots involved.  He added that according to Town ordinances either sprinklers or a cistern would be required for the existing four houses once the fifth lot was built.  James Nordstrom asked if retrofitting sprinklers in the existing four lots on Butterfield Mill Road would satisfy the Board of Fire Wards.  Dan MacDonald said that it would and added that when the Sprinkler Ordinance was written it was inferred that the developer should choose his method of fire protection for homes at the outset of a major subdivision.  He noted that this was the first instance where confusion arose because the project was abandoned by the original developer when the fourth lot was built and before a cistern was installed.  James Nordstrom asked if a cistern on the preexisting four lots and sprinklers on the proposed 7 lots would be acceptable.  Dan MacDonald replied that this was acceptable for those lots and any other lots that could be future subdivided off the applicant’s parcel.  Art Siciliano, LLS, asked if future subdivided lots might be able to access the cistern instead of installing sprinklers.  Dan MacDonald replied that this could also be an option as long as those lots were located within 2,200 feet of a cistern.  Gordon Carlstrom clarified that the Fire Wards were attempting to cover the precursor to the fifth lot.  Dan MacDonald stated this was the case and added that there were many cases where developers developed off of an existing cistern.  In addition, Dan MacDonald stated that some developments such as Carriage Road and Byam Road became so large that multiple cisterns were installed within the subdivision.  He noted that the Fire Wards were in favor of the Sprinkler Ordinance because sprinklers saved lives and suppressed a fire adequately so that once the Fire Department responded minimal water was supply was needed.
        The Chairman stated he was unclear on the value of a retrofitted fire cistern in the area of the existing house lots.  Dan MacDonald replied that because those lots were part of the major subdivision any lots subdivided before the fifth lot was entitled to some form of firewater
CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.

protection.  The Chairman noted that the owners of the existing four lots had not paid anything towards a fire cistern.  Dan MacDonald replied that was a business issue and not an issue for the Fire Department or the Town.  He felt the liability was with the developer who assumed ownership of the fifth lot.
        The Chairman stated that in discussions on the Subdivision Regulations the question was raised as to whether both sprinklers and cisterns would ever be required for a subdivision but did not think this applicant’s situation was foreseen.  Gordon Carlstrom stated that the theory was more toward sprinklers and the possibility of a smaller cistern requirement.  The Chairman asked if the Fire Department would require a 10,000 gallon or 30,000 gallon cistern for the proposed subdivision.  Dan MacDonald replied that nothing less than a 30,000-gallon cistern would be accepted as this was a proposed major subdivision.  Don Duhaime noted that the Subdivision Regulations did note that both sprinklers and cistern(s) could be a requirement.  Dan MacDonald stated that the existing lots were entitled to fire fighting water supply and Wayne Blassberg agreed.  The Chairman wished to note the difference between entitled and required as these owners did not pay towards a cistern.  Dan MacDonald strongly disagreed and felt this mistreated the owners of those lots and all future subdivided lots that went from four to five in number.
        Abutter Karen Kersting inquired as to whether her lot was considered a previous lot of what was owned by Curtis Hill, LLC.  She wondered how her lot would be impacted if the decision was made for sprinklers and/or cistern(s) and wanted to state for the record that she felt it was her choice to decide what if any type of fire suppression system she wanted for her home.  Abutter Dave Kersting added that because they lived in a home built in the 1800’s the sprinkler consideration was a moot point.  The Planning Assistant replied that she thought the Kersting’s lot was considered a part of the Curtis Hill, LLC, subdivision.  From the audience, Paula Bellemore suggested that because Karen Kersting’s question was a confusing one the Board may want to delay their answer.  The Chairman stated he did not intend to answer the question and preferred to seek Town Counsel’s opinion on whether her property was considered a part of Curtis Hill, LLC’s, subdivision.  Karen Kersting stated that whatever decision was made for this applicant would set a precedent.  Paula Bellemore thought that in reviewing the Subdivision Regulations it seemed the final decision on the type of fire water supply would rest with the Fire Wards.  Dan MacDonald replied that it did not and the Fire Wards acted only as an advisory board to the Planning Board.  Paula Bellemore suggested that the note on the original site plan be reviewed and it’s meaning considered as to whether the cistern was to service future lots or all lots.
        Gordon Carlstrom stated that he was of a contrary opinion in that he believed whatever intent was in place at the time of the original subdivision should be adhered to.  He added that the legal response to this issue would be interesting.
        Art Siciliano, LLS, asked if there were any more issues with the plan.  Gordon Carlstrom stated that the Conservation Commission had forwarded a letter to the Board regarding their site walk on the applicant’s property.  The Chairman read the letter aloud which stated there were no

CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.

major issues except that the Conservation Commission considered the three larger lots on the site more vulnerable to the wetlands.  Gordon Carlstrom asked if the applicant would be willing to
specify building envelopes on the larger lots so that protection of the adjacent wetlands was assured.  Art Siciliano, LLS, said the applicant could take that suggestion under consideration.
        Abutter George St. John asked what lot owner would be required to sell a portion of their land for the installation of a cistern if that became a requirement of the applicant.  The Chairman replied he did not have an answer to that question.  George St. John said the Board needed to consider what was best for the Town.  Dan MacDonald did not think that problem should be handled by the Town and that it should be an issue for the developers involved.  The Chairman stated the issue went much deeper because if the applicant installed a cistern on his property that was not within 2,200 feet of the existing lots, those lots might not qualify for their own subdivision in the future.  Dan MacDonald did not think that scenario was an option since the fire water supply requirement would still be unfulfilled for the protection of the existing lots.
        Abutter Kevin St. John stated that there were more underlying issues to consider such as the fact that his parents could not subdivide their lot because they could not afford to install a cistern or that when he built his own home sprinkler systems were not a common choice.
        The Chairman asked Dan MacDonald to review the three options he had presented earlier.  Dan MacDonald said the options worked out with the Planning Coordinator and himself were: 1. Put a cistern on Butterfield Mill Road to cover those lots affected as they were located further away. 2. Put sprinklers in the new subdivision homes and the existing homes in question. 3. Install two cisterns; one for the new subdivision and one to cover affected homes on Butterfield Mill Road.
        Dan MacDonald stated that Kevin St. John had approached the Fire Wards six months prior to ask if he would be required to install a cistern on his property if he chose to subdivide and The Fire Wards said he would.  He added that the Planning Board had suggested Kevin St. John speak to the Fire Wards and that ultimate advisement for a cistern was most likely a reason he did not re-approach the Planning Board to subdivide.  Kevin St. John agreed that the Fire Wards were being consistent in their recommendation regarding cistern requirements.
        Dave Kersting stated that when they purchased their property they were told that any future subdivisions on either side of the road would require a cistern.  He asked how his property would be covered if a cistern was installed on Butterfield Mill Road.  The Chairman replied that it would not be.  Karen Kersting added that they were not trying to belabor the situation but wanted to the Board to understand their situation and hoped that this issue could be resolved so that future reoccurrences were avoided.  The Chairman replied that the frustration and confusion over tonight’s discussion was why the Board would seek Town Counsel’s input.  He added that an option for lots that were able to be subdivided would be for those owners to install their own cisterns.  Dave Kersting asked if Town Counsel was aware of the complexities on his side of the road.  The Chairman said that he was.
        George St. John stated that Town Counsel should be asked if preexisting lots for any subdivision deserve fire protection or if they are just included within the count up to five lots.  He added that the bottom line was for developers to fund cisterns for five lots or more so that the
CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.

Town’s Fire Department could be kept as voluntary.  George St. John noted that up to this point prior subdivisions had available property to work with for the installation of cisterns.  The  Chairman agreed and stated the question was indeed what the preexisting lots were entitled to and that he would speak personally with Bill Drescher, Esq. if necessary.  Dan MacDonald disagreed and stated that it was not right to assume the first four lots did not count or should not be considered for firewater protection.  Gordon Carlstrom agreed that Lot #’s 1-4 still needed to be protected and the choice for what type of protection should be the developer’s responsibility.  Dan MacDonald stated that when Mitch Larochelle reached the fifth lot for his subdivision he also had to install a cistern for all the previous and future proposed lots.  He noted that the Town would be liable to all the past developers who had to abide by that standard if the Board chose to alter the Subdivision Regulations over the applicant’s issue.  Kevin St. John asked what the time frame would be for Town Counsel’s response.  The Chairman thought that the Board should hear back from Town Counsel in one to two weeks.
        Paula Bellemore wished to confirm that the issue of specified building envelopes for the larger lots on the site was understood.  Art Siciliano, LLS, asked if a certain size or setback would be warranted.  Gordon Carlstrom explained that the Conservation Commission preferred that the building envelopes were better defined on the three larger lots due to the wetlands in those areas.  James Nordstrom suggested two options to do this were to stipulate the building location for the lots or offer deed restrictions for a certain setback from the jurisdictional wetland.       

        James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn Curtis Hill, LLC, Major Subdivision, 7 Lots,   Location: Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #10/3, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District,   to October 26, 2004, at 7:30 p.m.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED  unanimously.       

QUIRK, THOMAS & CHRISTINE                               Adjourned from 08/24/04   
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision
Non-Residential Site Plan Review/40 Camp Sites
Location: Cochran Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/11
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Mark Moser, PE, Christine Quirk, and Barry and Wayne Charrest.  No abutters were in attendance.
        Mark Moser, PE, submitted a letter for the additional waiver requests discussed at the last meeting.  The Chairman asked if there were any comments from the Board regarding the recent site walk and there were none.  James Nordstrom stated that he believed the proposed usage of the property based on what was viewed at the site walk seemed suitable.  Gordon Carlstrom stated he was of the same opinion.
        
QUIRK, cont.

        The Chairman asked if corrections noted at the previous meeting had been made to the site plan.  Mark Moser, PE, replied the changes had not yet been made but were minor checklist corrections, which could be easily adjusted.
        James Nordstrom wished to note that although the abutters who were present at the previous hearing for this application were not in attendance tonight, the three main concerns they had formerly raised should be noted for the record to be noise, smoke and the unintentional trespassing of campers onto abutting properties.  He noted that the Board could not impose any direction upon the applicant regarding the drifting of smoke from the campground to abutters’ properties.  James Nordstrom further noted that although the noise from the campground may have been a valid concern he was unsure what the Board was able to impose on the Quirks so that it was alleviated.  He added that the trespassing incidences noted by abutters were most likely accidental in nature and that the Board had suggested at the previous meeting that abutters who experienced such occurrences should contact the campground owners or ultimately the police.  James Nordstrom stated that he wished to note these issues to the Board for possible alternate suggestions and also to confirm that although certain discussion from the abutters seemed unwarranted some valid points had been raised.  Gordon Carlstrom asked Christine Quirk how she dealt with the noise issue at the campground.  Christine Quirk replied that quiet hours at the campground were from 11:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. and enforced by security persons employed by the campground.  She added that the Town did not have a noise ordinance but the campground had voluntarily adopted such a practice.  Christine Quirk believed that much of the noise in question was actually generated by individuals on the neighboring Dane Road and that the primary abutter who complained about the noise was the same individual who had set off fireworks on her own property at 2:00 a.m. this past summer.  The Chairman stated that there were no police records that demonstrated problems at the campground and that the abutters’ concerns should be taken at face value.  He added that the 200-foot buffer zone around the campground was there for a reason.  Gordon Carlstrom asked if any perimeter areas of the campground would be better served by a fence to discourage accidental trespassing onto abutting properties.  Christine Quirk replied that installing such fencing would be difficult.  Barry Charrest noted that the boundaries of the campground were approximately 1,000 feet away from the nearest abutting property line.  James Nordstrom suggested that the applicant’ best defense in dealing with the abutters’ issues were to make the campers aware of the issues.  Christine Quirk wished to note that she had four security persons who patrolled the grounds beyond 11:00 p.m. and one person who remained on site until the last campfire of the evening was out.  James Nordstrom added that it was unfortunate that the abutters from the previous meeting were not here tonight, however, it was the Board’s responsibility to note their concerns.
       
       James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan for Additional Camp Sites 1 thru 40, Thomas P.  & Christine Quirk, Tax Map 7 Lot 11, Cochran Hill Road, and the Site Plan prepared for Thomas P. and Christine Quirk, Proposed Expansion at Friendly Beaver Campground, for the creation of forty new tent sites, subject to the following conditions:
QUIRK, cont.    
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1.      Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised                

                subdivision plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at           this hearing.
        2.      Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
        3.      Submission of a minimum of three (3) blue/blackline copies of the revised site                  plan, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this                  hearing.
        4.      Execution of a Site Review Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
        5.      Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision or site plan review                  application and/or the  recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
        6.      Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final subdivision 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 December 1,     2004, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further   action by the Board.  Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a
        written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on     notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the    approval.

        CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
        1.      All site improvements are to be completed as per the approved site plans.
        2.      The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant                   that all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection,                  prior to scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of                    three (3) weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing;
        3.      Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be                   submitted;
        4.      A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have                         been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of any                       Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy, or both.  No occupancy/use of the                   toilet building or use of the tent sites shall be permitted until the site                               improvements as noted have been completed, and a site inspection and                            compliance hearing held.
        The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be December 1, 2007,    the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing as        noted in item   #4 above.
        Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.



DODGE, CLAIRE & JAMES                                   Adjourned from 09/07/04   
NEW BOSTON SELF STORAGE, LLC
Public Hearing/NRSPR
Self-Storage Expansion
Location: NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/21-3
Commercial “Com” District

        The Chairman stated that the applicant had requested this hearing to be cancelled and rescheduled.  Gordon Carlstrom added that the applicants’ note explained that they wished to reschedule in order to allow enough time for adequate mapping and soils studies of the site.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of James and Claire Dodge New  Boston Self Storage, LLC, Non-Residential Site Plan Review, Self-Storage Expansion,     Location: NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/21-3, Commercial “Com”   District, to October 26, 2004, at a time to be determined.  Bob Furey seconded the motion       and it PASSED unanimously.

        From the audience, Lou Maynard stated he wished to speak on the subject of New Boston Self Storage, LLC.  The Chairman asked Lou Maynard what interest he held on that subject.  Lou Maynard replied that his interest concerned some events had taken place on the site of the storage facility.  The Chairman thought it would be more appropriate if Mr. Maynard reserved his comments until a hearing was held for the Dodge application on October 26, 2004.  Lou Maynard asked if each Planning Board meeting offered a public session that allowed for open discussion on any topic.  The Chairman replied that this was not the case unless an individual requested such a discussion in writing to the Board in advance of a Planning Board meeting
in order to be considered an item under Miscellaneous Business.  Lou Maynard stated he had pertinent information regarding the New Boston Self Storage, LLC.  The Chairman suggested that information should be presented to and signed by the applicant.  Lou Maynard submitted copies of the State RSA to the Board, which he said outlined the standards for public meetings that conflicted with the Town’s policy.  He added that he had every right to attend the applicants’ site walk.  The Chairman disagreed as did the Vice Chairman.  Lou Maynard concluded that the State’s information must then be incorrect.  The Chairman thanked Mr. Maynard for his input.

VISTA ROAD, LLC                                                 Adjourned from 09/14/04   
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/14 Lots
Location: Inkberry and Wilson Hill Roads
Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman stated that the applicant had requested this hearing to be cancelled and rescheduled.

VISTA ROAD, LLC, cont.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Vista Road, LLC, Major      Subdivision, 14 Lots, Location: Inkberry and Wilson Hill Roads, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5,    Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to October 12, 2004, at 8:15 p.m.  Travis Daniels      seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.  

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2004

1.      Approval of the minutes of August 24, 2004, with or without changes.
        (Distributed at the meeting of September 14, 2004).

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of August 24, 2004, as written.  Bob       Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

2.      Discussion with John Riendeau, Road Agent, Re: Driveway Permits and Enforcement.

        The Chairman stated that enforcement was needed regarding cases of driveways that had not been built according to their permits and were in these instances, circular driveways.  John Riendeau asked if this issue involved a driveway on McCurdy Road.  The Chairman replied that the issue began with two circular driveways constructed on Carriage Road.  John Riendeau replied that he had not yet signed the final approval on the most recent driveway permit as it was specified to be a single entrance driveway whose owners preferred it to be circular like the one constructed by their neighbors.  He added that this was now a difficult problem to solve.  The Chairman thought that the problem was not the Road Agent’s or Planning Board’s but the property owners’ who had not abided by the specifications of their permit.  John Riendeau stated he had not been to the property locations recently but knew that construction had been halted on one of the driveways.  Gordon Carlstrom wished to clarify that there were two circular driveways being considered.  John Riendeau replied that the first circular driveway on Carriage Road had been built after the fact.  Gordon Carlstrom thought the circular driveway that was completed was considered an illegal structure as it did not have the appropriate permit.  The Planning Board Assistant noted that both driveways had been constructed but paving was halted on the more recent one when the Planning Department informed them of the conflict.  Gordon Carlstrom stressed that the first driveway was still in violation and that issue should be handled by the Building and Code Official.  John Riendeau wished to clarify that the Planning Board Assistant had sent a letter of notification to the owners of the completed circular driveway.  The Planning Board Assistant replied that she had and they were awaiting the Board’s decision on the matter.  Gordon Carlstrom noted that RSA 236:13 stated no parcel of land could have more than one driveway connection unless that parcel’s highway frontage exceeded 500 feet.
        The Chairman asked Dan MacDonald what his thoughts were on circular driveways from the Fire Departments viewpoint.  He added that it was the Board’s practice to encourage common curb cuts for driveways in order to reduce the number of cuts on a roadway and that a
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

circular driveway contradicted that theory.  Dan MacDonald replied that a circular driveway was like a road with two access points, which made emergency access easier from the Fire Department’s perspective.  Gordon Carlstrom stated that the Town’s policy had been to minimize curb cuts on roadways unless an overriding reason was presented for the alternative.  The Chairman noted that it was possible to construct a circular driveway with only one entrance or curb cut.
        James Nordstrom asked John Riendeau for his opinion on circular driveways.  John Riendeau replied that he was not against driveways with two curb cuts as long as the distance between them was ample at approximately 75 feet and all criteria for single entrance driveways regarding sight distance and drainage were met.  The Planning Board Assistant asked if this meant that a reduction to the 200-foot curb cut distance noted in the Driveway Regulations was warranted.  James Nordstrom agreed with the Planning Assistant’s observation and explained that the previous Road Agent had decided upon the 200-foot distance measure between curb cuts. He added that if the opinion of the current Road Agent differed, a correction should be made in the Driveway Regulations.  Gordon Carlstrom asked if a distance of 100 feet would be more reasonable or if it would be difficult given the current sight distance requirements.  John Riendeau agreed that even at 100 feet between curb cuts he felt only 20% of the lots in the Town would be eligible for circular driveways.  James Nordstrom thought a specific section for circular driveways could be included in the Driveway Regulations.  Gordon Carlstrom noted it would be important to include the safe sight distance criteria of 400 feet within such a section.  James Nordstrom agreed but added that measure was deceiving in the case of arterial roads.  Gordon Carlstrom thought that certain feeder roads such as Byam Road and Bedford Road could be excluded from the circular driveway option where cul-de-sac roads and smaller roads would be more permissible.  John Riendeau thought that there were enough Town regulations in place to allow for a certain number of circular driveways without it becoming an issue.
            The Chairman stated that the circular driveway issue began because an application was not applied for and if it had been and sight distance was adequate the driveway might have been allowed.  The Planning Board Assistant asked if the residents in question should now reapply for a circular driveway.  The Board agreed the residents should reapply.  John Riendeau asked if a time frame had been given in the notification letters sent to the residents from the Planning Department for their response.  The Planning Board Assistant replied that the applicant who had applied for a circular driveway was denied and the individual who already had a circular driveway on their property was instructed to remove the non-permitted access and restore the driveway to its natural condition.  She added that this individual was awaiting the outcome of tonight’s discussion.  Gordon Carlstrom reiterated that the installed circular driveway classified as non-permitted use.  The Planning Board Assistant noted that both circular driveways had been installed and the individual who owned the more recently constructed driveway had halted the paving until the Board reached a decision.
        Don Duhaime stated that there could be a safety benefit to a circular driveway provided it fit properly on its lot.  The Chairman agreed but added that an appropriate application would be required.  John Riendeau stated that he could measure the sight distance of the two circular
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

driveways on Carriage Road and added that he did not have an issue with that type of driveway as long as adequate sight distance was present and the curb cuts would not hinder snow removal from the roadway.  The Chairman clarified that under certain circumstances circular driveways could be allowed and John Riendeau agreed.  The Planning Board Assistant asked if the Driveway Regulations would be altered to reflect this or if the curb cut distance would simply be changed to 100 feet.  Gordon Carlstrom replied that non-arterial roads should include the 100-foot distance stipulation because circular driveways would not be beneficial to feeder roads that should have minimal curb cuts.  The Chairman added that roads destined to become through roads at a future time should also be scrutinized.
        John Riendeau stated that the individual who had applied for the circular driveway on Carriage road might not be able to complete that construction as the lot was on the corner and one of the proposed driveway entrances would fall too close to the stop sign at an intersection point on that roadway.

11.     Driveway Permit Application for Robert Vaughn, Bog Brook Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/41-       3, for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.
        (Board to drive by prior to meeting)
        
        James Nordstrom recused himself from the Board as he was employed by the company who prepared the driveway plan.
        Upon review of the plans Gordon Carlstrom asked if the Town allowed driveways to be constructed at a 12% pitch.  John Riendeau replied that 10% had always been the maximum grade preferred.  Bob Furey stated he had viewed the driveway prior to tonight’s meeting and thought it appeared steep.  John Riendeau clarified that this was an existing driveway.  The Planning Assistant concurred and stated that plans were on file but never changed.  The Chairman noted that the filed plans may be erroneous because the elevations at the site were later found to be 10 feet off in some areas.  He asked James Nordstrom how far off he had found the measurements to be upon his review of the plans.  James Nordstrom explained that K&A was hired in 1997 by Jim Powers to design a cistern for the subdivision that included this lot.
He added that the Planning Board at that time was concerned about driveway access, therefore, Jim Powers hired K&A to do driveway plans who was supplied with survey information from Gardner Kellogg of Littleton, NH.  James Nordstrom went on to add that the topographic information given by Gardner Kellogg was later discovered to be incorrect for half of the subdivision which involved Lot #’s 1-4.  He noted that the information on Lot #’s 5-8 was correct and those driveways were built without incident.  James Nordstrom summarized that the original driveway plan done for Lot #’s 3&4 was unviable based on the information the design was referenced from.  He stated that the owner of the property approached K&A a month and a half prior to resolve the issue and it was decided that the original common driveway plan which served Lot #’s 3&4 would be moved to from Lot #4 to Lot #3 which had better topography.  James Nordstrom added that this driveway would be steep but K&A had made efforts to account for problems on adjacent lots and now better understood the ground water tables in the area as
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

they went forward with the design.
        The Chairman concluded that this issue involved an approved building lot with an approved engineered driveway that was not built to specification because the elevations were incorrectly stated on the original plan.  He suggested that the board conduct a site walk on the property and ascertain if the new proposed design by K&A was the best solution to the problem.
        Wayne Blassberg asked where the driveway was located.  The Chairman replied that the driveway was located on Bog Brook Road and served Lot #’s 3&4 of the subdivision developed by James Powers.  He added that the Planning Board at the time had approved the driveway plan based on incorrect topographic information and this Board was now trying to resolve the driveway issue.  Wayne Blassberg stated he recalled Mr. Melanson’s own driveway to be quite steep with challenging switchbacks.  The Chairman agreed and noted that because Mr. Melanson chose to place his home so far up the hill on his property the Town had held him to even stricter standards for his driveway design.  Dan MacDonald added that they had informed Mr. Melanson they could not respond to an emergency on his property during the winter due to the design of his driveway which was the reason he had installed fire sprinklers in his home.  Dan MacDonald noted that Mr. Melanson was still vulnerable in the case of a medical emergency.  He added that three letters had since been sent to home owners for the same type of driveway issue which stated the Fire Department could not guarantee protection to those properties in the event of an emergency.  Dan MacDonald stated that 10% grades were the maximum allowance for driveways and 8% was considered to be an even better standard to assure the safety of travel for emergency apparatus.  He noted they would continue to notify homeowners in the same manner going forward if driveways whose grades exceeded 10% were approved by the Board.  The Chairman was in agreement and explained if they were able to deny the driveway for Lot# 3&4 they would, however, an approved Driveway Permit already existed which the Planning Board had approved with erroneous information.  Don Duhaime asked if the original permit could be considered invalid.  The Chairman replied that legal counsel had been sought on that question and it had been suggested that the Town should simply discourage driveways for certain properties that could not meet the Town’s grade requirements even though that action would not completely release the Town from liability.  Gordon Carlstrom noted that this scenario resulted in the advent of the 10% grade maximum for driveway construction.  He asked if the locations of the homes on Lot #’s 3&4 would remain the same.  James Nordstrom replied that they would.  The Chairman confirmed that K&A had utilized the actual slope of the land on the plans to ascertain the best location for the proposed driveway.  James Nordstrom concurred adding that the information on the revised plan was based on field surveys done by Sanford Survey five weeks prior.
        Wayne Blassberg resubmitted copies of the Fire Department documents from 2001 that had been submitted to land owners with similar driveway issues.
        Gordon Carlstrom asked if there was any way to decrease the cut to the slope on Lot #3 where it went from 12% to 5% on the plans.  James Nordstrom replied that if the 5% grade was not met at the point illustrated on the plan, fill would be required from that point out to the edge of Bog Brook Road.  He added that this problem had been significantly analyzed and the
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

revised driveway plan presented the best-case scenario for the proposed driveway.  Dan MacDonald stated that this issue was yet another example of a problem unfairly inherited by the Town because it was an unsafe scenario to provide emergency service.  The Chairman asked Dan MacDonald what his suggestions were.  Dan MacDonald replied that if a driveway could not be provided to guarantee safe access for Town services, the lot should not be allowed.  The Chairman agreed but noted this issue dealt with a lot that was already approved.  Dan MacDonald concluded that the driveways should be altered so that it was safe for the travel of emergency service vehicles at a maximum allowed grade of 10%.  Gordon Carlstrom noted that the problem was that the new access proposed would be better than the originally approved access even though the grade would remain at 12%.  Dan MacDonald felt that grade voided the validity of the lot.  Wayne Blassberg did not think any grade over 10% would have been accepted by the Town.  James Nordstrom presented the original plans, which were based on the original survey data.  The Chairman stated that although this was an unfortunate situation the new driveway design grade did not exceed the previously approved grade and the work involved would be substantial as more fill would need to be addressed than in the original design.  
        James Nordstrom stated as a point of interest that the slope of the first 400 feet of Mr. Melanson’s driveway was approximately 16%.  
        The Chairman wanted to reconfirm to Dan MacDonald that any new driveway application was required to be graded at 10% or less and encouraged to be less.  He added that the Board would never approve the redesign of a driveway with a grade higher than 10% if the original grade was already within the required range.  The Chairman concluded that this situation was unique because the grade was already approved at 12% and the goal was to better design the driveway even though the grade was unable to be lowered.  He added that the Board valued the emergency services of the Town and would not want to put its employees or equipment at risk.
        A site walk was scheduled for October 5, 2004, at 6:30 p.m.+/-.  John Riendeau, Dan MacDonald and Wayne Blassberg asked if they could also attend the site walk and the Chairman replied they were always welcome on any site walk with the Board.  Bob Furey asked if the approval of this Driveway Permit would require a waiver to the Driveway Regulations.  The Chairman stated that in this case the plan was being modified from an original so it would not.  He noted that if this were a new plan it would be denied because it did not meet the requirements of the Driveway Regulations.

        John Riendeau then noted changes to Sections 9.3 and 9.6 of the Driveway Regulations draft, which would be reviewed at the meeting of October 12, 2004.

18.     Discussion Re: Fraser Drive, Tax Map/Lot 8/62, no response from letter dated September  16, 2004, sent to CVI Development on the remaining compliance items.
        (Eric Farris to be present)     
        
        The Chairman stated that he understood the final construction of Fraser Drive was underway and asked John Riendeau if he had any concerns.  John Riendeau thought the major
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

issue that remained was for final paving to be completed in order to establish the road crown as specified by Dufresne-Henry, Inc.  He added he was aware the shoulders had been fixed and asked when the paving would be done as he had not viewed the road for final approval.  Kenny White replied the road was scheduled to be paved on October 5, 2004.  He added the riprap in the cul-de-sac had been removed and replaced and the level spreader installed along with re-loaming and seeding of some areas along the road.  John Riendeau asked if Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had viewed the road.  Kenny White replied that Seth Potter of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had recently viewed the road and was pleased with the progress.  He explained that he had some scheduling conflicts with a prior paving company, which had caused the delay for completion.  Gordon Carlstrom asked if the crown of the road would be raised by paving in the middle section.  Kenny White said that it would and the entire road would be re-paved and the majority re-shimmed.  Gordon Carlstrom asked if the joints would be fixed as well.  John Riendeau explained that the re-shimming would also take care of that issue.  Kenny White added that he would also extend the entrance point on the right side of the road and possibly install some granite curbing as cars were driving across the currently unpaved portion.  The Planning Assistant stated that this discussion was necessary tonight as the applicants past extensions for completion had expired.
        Eric Farris wished to review the history of the paving conflict for the Board’s information.  He added that Pike had incorrectly crowned the road when they paved and the Road Agent was dissatisfied with the joints.  Eric Farris went on to say that Pike was slated to re-visit the project last spring to fix the paving but decided against it so Bolton White contacted Continental Paving to do the job.  He noted that Continental Paving cancelled the job one week prior to their scheduled date to pave and it had been difficult to find an alternate company in the interim.  John Riendeau stated that Pike usually did a good paving job but in this instance had subcontracted the paving work to another company.  He added that this company had also done a less than satisfactory job on Inkberry Road.  John Riendeau also noted that the original paving job on Fraser Drive was started late in the day and he felt the mix became too cold.  He also noted that the sub-contracted company no longer worked for Pike.  Gordon Carlstrom asked if the base comprised of the cold mix would cause any problems when the new pavement went down.  John Riendeau said it would not and the main problem was the crown of the road, which would be sealed by the new pavement.  James Nordstrom asked what company would do the shimming and overlay.  Kenny White stated that Advanced Excavating and Paving would be doing the job and that he had been very pleased with their work on other projects.
        Michele Brown asked how the applicant’s outstanding administrative items would be handled.  Eric Farris replied that those items could not be addressed until the paving was finished.
        Eric Farris wished to address drainage issues presented by Dufresne-Henry, Inc. on the common driveway portion of Fraser Drive.  He stated that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., now wanted some drainage changes made in that area which according to his attorney was not possible as he no longer owned the common driveway and the lots on it had all been sold.  Eric Farris added that he wanted to bring this to the Board’s attention in case it became a bigger issue in the future.  
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

The Chairman asked Suzanne O’Brien, Recording Clerk, who lived on the common drive portion of the road if she had any knowledge of this issue.  The Recording Clerk replied that she had spoken with Tris Gordon who owned the lot with the drainage area in question and thought he had mentioned that a culvert had been slated for that location but never installed.  Eric Farris did not think Dufresne-Henry, Inc., would have missed a culvert that had been on the plans.  Kenny White said the drainage problem might be more easily resolved by putting fill in the area of the puddling and offered to view the location with John Riendeau.  The Chairman asked that John Riendeau and Kenny White attempt to solve the problem with fill or grading unless it was discovered that something was blatantly missed on the plans.

3.      A copy of a letter dated September 20, 2004, from the Board of Fire Wards, New Boston   Fire Department, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: Clarification of Intent of the       Cistern/Sprinkler Regulation, was distributed for the Board’s information.

        The Chairman stated they would seek Bill Drescher, Esq.’s opinion as was mentioned during earlier discussion of the Curtis Hill, LLC, application.      
               
5.      A copy of a letter dated September 22, 2004, from James M. Denesevich, to the New       Boston Planning Board, Re: Subdivision proposal-Lull Road Corporation, was distributed  for the Board’s review and discussion.

        The Planning Assistant stated that this letter included concerns from abutters.  The Chairman asked that the latter be attached to the file of the Lull Road Corporation application and addressed at the time of their next hearing.  Gordon Carlstrom asked when that hearing was scheduled.  The Planning Assistant stated the applicant had not yet filed for their next hearing.
        James Nordstrom noted that if the Steep Slopes Conservation District Ordinance presented earlier in the evening was ultimately voted in by the Town this proposed subdivision would be greatly impacted.  The Chairman stated he had heard the developer was promoting scare tactics that suggested the land would be graveled and leveled for a conventional subdivision if he did not obtain approval for the number of houses he proposed for the cluster design.  James Nordstrom thought the land was a large gravel resource and also saw the same outcome if the ZBA and/or Planning Board did not rule in the applicants’ favor.  Gordon Carlstrom thought this might be the justification for a trade off between the Town and the applicant since lots of some sort would be constructed sooner or later.  He added that the suggestion made at the applicants’ previous informational session to ignore the slopes of 25% and greater in order to provide adequate density for the cluster seemed to be a good suggestion as it would better preserve the land.
        Bob Furey asked what was required to gravel a site.  Gordon Carlstrom thought for that particular site the applicant would need to approach the ZBA for permitted use and file a site plan for acceptance or rejection by the Planning Board.  He noted examples of similar situations on McCollum Road and Riverdale Road where the developers went ahead and graveled their
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

property under the guise of incidental excavation because their gravel permits were denied.  The Planning Assistant asked if the Town had the ability to prevent such graveling.  The Chairman replied it would be difficult as the developer had a plan to promote his reason for graveling.  Gordon Carlstrom noted that the developer had overtly stated they intended to mine the site, which went beyond the incidental excavation theory.  Don Duhaime asked if the developer would need a State permit to gravel the site.  James Nordstrom replied that a State permit was only required if a town did not issue gravel permits and New Boston did.  Don Duhaime then inquired if the Town collected a tax on mined materials.  Gordon Carlstrom replied the figure was an insignificant amount of $.02 per yard.

6.      A copy of a letter dated September 15, 2004, from New Boston Speaks Foot Traffic and    Road Safety Committee, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, Re: Crosswalks, was      distributed for the Board’s information.

7.      A copy of an announcement received September 20, 2004, from the New Hampshire Planners Association, to the New Boston Planning Board, Re: 2004 Fall Professional Development Conference and Annual Meeting, was distributed for the Board’s information.

        The Planning Assistant stated that Board members should notify her if they were interested in attending.

8.      A copy of an announcement received September 20, 2004, from ACEC-NH, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: Brownfields Redevelopment, was distributed for the Board’s information.

9.      The minutes of September 14, 2004, were distributed for approval at the meeting of October 12, 2004, with or without changes.

10.     The minutes of September 7, 2004, were distributed for approval at the meeting of October 12, 2004, with or without changes.

13a.    A copy of a letter dated September 27, 2004, from James and Claire Dodge, to the Board,         re: request for an extension or continuance of their final hearing, was distributed for the     Board’s information.

13b.    A copy of a memo dated September 27, 2004, from Cynthia Wilson, Conservation    Commission, to Dennis Sarette, Building and Code Official, re: New Boston Self  Storage, was distributed for the Board’s information.

        
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

The Chairman read the memo, which stated: “…the wetlands were clearly delineated with flags, core samples had apparently been recently taken, rocks had been placed in the gully to prevent erosion, hay bales had been placed and staked ten to thirty feet from the flagging, they appeared to have been placed prior to recent flagging, some fill was found within the delineated area ranging from 5 to 10 feet into recently flagged wetlands…”  The Chairman stated he assumed this was the reason for the applicants’ request for adjournment and rescheduling of their hearing.  The Planning Board Assistant said this was the case.

13c.    A copy of a memo dated September 28, 2004, to Burr Tupper, Conservation         Commission, from Dennis Sarette, Building and Code Official, re: New Boston Self        Storage, was distributed for the Board’s information.

        The Chairman read the memo, which stated a wetland violation had been committed and surmised this was the 5 to 10 feet, fill extensions mentioned in item #13b.

14.     A copy of a letter dated September 22, 2004, from McCurdy Road Development, LLC, (Nissitissit Development), to the Board, Re: extension request, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

        Bob Furey asked which of the conditions subsequent the applicant was referring to.  The Planning Board Assistant explained the extension request involved the paving deadline for the road, which seemed moot since the base coat was required to sit over one winter.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to extend the applicant’s extension date for final paving to      December 31, 2005.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

15.     A copy of a fax received September 27, 2004, from Thomas Welch, Hobbins & Gardner, LLC, to Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant, Re: cell towers in New Boston, was distributed for the Board’s information. (I can put their representative on miscellaneous business for Oct 12, 2004.)

        The Planning Assistant said that because their extension of October 1, 2004 was imminent and the Coordinator said no more extensions would be given, they were willing to send a representative to meet with the Board.

16.     A copy of a fax received September 28, 2004, from Brian Holt, Vista Road, LLC, to the Board, Re: letter requesting to be postponed to October 12, 2004, was distributed for the Board’s information.

        The Chairman stated that the Board had acted on this request earlier in the evening.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

17.     A copy of a letter dated September 17, 2004, from Charles P. Bauer, Ransmeier &

        Spellman, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, Re: request for documents and         discovery request pertaining to the JFL Enterprises & Holdings, LLC, V. Town of New     Boston, was distributed for the Board’s information.

        Gordon Carlstrom noted that the submission from Lou Maynard should be forwarded to Mr. Bauer as any requests that dealt with the (lawsuit) case were to be reviewed by the counsel retained by the Property Liability Trust to represent the Town.  James Nordstrom asked if Ransmeier & Spellman were working on behalf of the Town and Gordon Carlstrom said this was the case.

19.     Reminder about the Municipal Law Lecture Series starting on October 13, 2004, for the Board’s information.

        The Planning Assistant stated sign-ups were still being accepted if there was any interest from the Board.

20.     Daily road inspection reports dated August 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 17th, 18th, 20th, 24th, 25th, and the 26th, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Waldorf Estates, were distributed for the Board’s information.

21.     Daily road inspection reports dated August 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 23rd, 24th, 25th, and  the 26th, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Highland Hills, were distributed for the Board’s       information.

        John Riendeau stated the road was paved and looked very good.  

        John Riendeau explained that the terminal melts were proposed at the end of every guard rail in the Waldorf Estates subdivision which he explained were designed for roads that saw speeds of 45 m.p.h. and greater.  He added that the cost to fix a terminal melt was approximately $2,000.  John Riendeau proposed that instead of terminal melts wrap around ends on the guard rails would be sufficient as this road was a 35 m.p.h. speed.  Gordon Carlstrom asked for a definition of a terminal melt.  John Riendeau explained that a terminal melt was a 30 foot fence section that contained a piece of channel iron with cables and was designed to collapse on impact in order to prevent the guard rail from impaling people.  He added that Dufresne-Henry, Inc. wanted to replace the terminal melts with wrap around ends except for intersection locations where the risks of impact were greater.  John Riendeau noted that on curved areas of the road the guardrail could be extended another 50 or 60 feet until the riskier zones were passed and the ends then turned and wrapped.  He explained that he was considering future costs to the Town for repairs in the event of accidents or hits by the snowplows.  Gordon Carlstrom thought the idea
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

was a sensible one.  James Nordstrom asked if the wrap-arounds were Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s recommendation.  John Riendeau replied he was in the process of working with them on
this and that Amy Alexander and Seth Potter were in agreement.  He noted that the town of Bow, NH, had approved terminal melts and realized it be too costly where the alternative was sufficient.  James Nordstrom thought this was a good thing to keep in mind when working on other site plans.
        The Planning Assistant asked if the Board thought John Riendeau should be present for the approval of Driveway Permit applications.  The Chairman did not think this was necessary.  Gordon Carlstrom thought problematic permits could be flagged for John Riendeau’s review.
        James Nordstrom asked John Riendeau what his opinion was on the Planning Board not being involved in driveway permits at all.  John Riendeau replied that he understood from discussions with the Coordinator that the Board was working toward the process of reviewing the driveway designs and leaving inspections to the Road Agent.  He agreed that this would be a good plan as he needed to review the driveways regardless.  Gordon Carlstrom thought that the Board could define driveway locations and the Road Agent could review construction detail.  James Nordstrom added that he and the Coordinator had discussed the Planning Board’s elimination from the entire process.  Gordon Carlstrom noted that the process was even stranger when the Selectmen’s Office was involved.  Bob Furey stated that as a new member he felt land use was a viable topic for the Board’s involvement but he questioned the purpose of the Board checking sight distance and final grades.  James Nordstrom agreed the process need to be changed while the administrative items could still be handled by the Planning Department.  Gordon Carlstrom added that inspections could be solely handled by the Road Agent, Building and Code Official and Code Enforcement Officer.  Don Duhaime asked if Dufresne-Henry, Inc., should also be involved.  John Riendeau replied that in the case of new subdivision they would be but not for driveways built off existing roads.

4.      Signature required for Subdivision Plan for Lull Road Corporation, Tax Map/Lot #3/5, by         the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

        The Chairman and Secretary signed the above noted subdivision plan.

12.     Signatures required for Subdivision Plan of Carol and Daniel Towne, South Hill Road,    Tax Map/Lot #10/78, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

        The Chairman and Secretary signed the above noted subdivision plan.

        At 10:00 p.m., James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn.  Gordon Carlstrom seconded the         motion and it PASSED unanimously.

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