Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 12/28/04
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON                                             
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of 2004 Meetings

December 28, 2004

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice Chairman James Nordstrom.  Present were regular members, Chairman Peter Hogan, Bob Furey; ex-officio Dave Woodbury; 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 Art Siciliano, LLS, Sam Proctor, Buck Creel, Bob Todd, LLS, John Riendeau, Brian Holt, Howard and Frances Towne, John Greenwood and Willard Dodge.

CURTIS HILL, LLC
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/ 7 Lots
Location: Old Coach Road
Tax Map/Lot #10/3
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Vice Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Art Siciliano, LLS, and Sam Proctor of Curtis Hill, LLC.  An abutter present was Buck Creel.
        Art Siciliano, LLS, stated that the applicant proposed to subdivide Tax Map/Lot #10/3, formerly campground property, into seven lots where Lot #’s 1&2, 3&4, and 5&6 would each share a common driveway and Lot #7 would have its own single driveway.  He added that all the new homes in the proposed subdivision would be installed with fire sprinkler systems.  James Nordstrom asked if there were any significant changes in the application since the last meeting with the applicant.  Art Siciliano, LLS, replied there were not but noted that lot corners had been set and a corresponding note added to the plans.  He then submitted revised plans to the Board.  
Art Siciliano, LLS, noted that copies of covenants and sample deeds had been prepared for the application.  Sam Proctor stated that a blanket covenant for the fire suppression systems in the homes to be built would be recorded at the Registry of Deeds prior to the recording of any deeds and was noted on the plan. He also noted that three common driveway easements had been prepared for the shared driveways.  He added that their attorney, Will Sullivan had also served as counsel to the applicants for Nissitissit Development whose plan was approved by the Board in July, 2004.  Sam Proctor noted that Will Sullivan, Esq., had suggested the revision of Note #4 along with the provision of sample deeds for the Board’s review as was done for the Nissitissit plan.  James Nordstrom stated that typical procedure for submitted documents was that they were forwarded by the Planning Department to Town Counsel for review.  He added that if such documents were examples of previous drafts applied to similar plans the review was likely to proceed quickly.  Bob Furey asked for an explanation of the three driveway easements.  Sam Proctor replied that three easements were prepared, one for each pair driveways that were shared.  James Nordstrom clarified that the intent of the shared driveway was that it enter at the common lot line and immediately split off to two lots.  Sam Proctor said this was the case and that the common driveways were also intended to lessen traffic on the main roadway.  Bob Furey questioned if an easement would be required for each parcel versus each pair of lots that would share a common driveway.  Sam Proctor replied that Will Sullivan, Esq., had advised them that each parcel’s deed would reference the common easement and the lot owner’s responsibility to
CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.

the common portion shared with the abutting lot owner.  He added that this requirement would be on the blanket covenant as would the requirement for fire suppression systems in each home.  
        Before continuing with the hearing, James Nordstrom appointed alternate Don Duhaime as a voting member of the Board.
        James Nordstrom asked if the Board had any further questions.  Dave Woodbury asked if the applicant was aware of the Steep Slopes Ordinance posting for the March Town vote.  James Nordstrom noted that the application had been accepted as complete prior to the posting and was, therefore, exempt.  The Planning Assistant noted that the application had been accepted as complete in a preliminary format.  James Nordstrom replied that was correct and that because the applicant was submitting the application as a final at tonight’s hearing the application would in fact be subject to the terms of the posted ordinance.  Art Siciliano, LLS, asked what the terms of the Ordinance dictated as he had not reviewed it.  James Nordstrom replied that the Ordinance was fairly lengthy but summarized that it deducted certain areas of slope from lot areas that could be used to satisfy the Zoning requirement.  He added that in the Ordinance, slope areas of 25% and greater were eliminated as usable for land development while a portion of slopes that were calculated at 15% up to 25% were allowed.  Dave Woodbury thought that most lots on the applicant’s plan would be unaffected by the Ordinance, however, thought the larger lots had some questionable contours.  He added that it was difficult to be certain by simply viewing the plan.  Bob Furey added that the fourth lot on the plan seemed to be the only one with steep slopes.  Dave Woodbury thought it unlikely that the application could be accepted as complete at tonight’s hearing given that the Steep Slopes Ordinance had not yet been applied to the plan.  James Nordstrom agreed and noted that although the application had been accepted as complete at a prior hearing it was acted upon in a preliminary format and, therefore, could not be accepted as complete in its final form tonight due to the required application of the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  Sam Proctor stated that he understood that the application would need to comply with the Ordinance in order to proceed.  Art Siciliano, LLS, asked what the procedure would entail going forward.  Dave Woodbury explained that legal documents could not be reviewed by Town Counsel until the application was accepted as complete by the Board.  He also wondered if the proposal of shared driveways would pose an issue.  The Planning Assistant noted that the shared driveways were discussed and approved in the preliminary stage of the application and added that the Road Agent had not raised any concerns.  James Nordstrom stated that the application had gone through the preliminary process and a site walk was held the previous summer, however, at this point it technically could not be accepted as complete due to the timing of the posted Steep Slopes Ordinance.  He added that the Board had the option of denying the application or could suggest a withdrawal by the applicant.  James Nordstrom then asked Dave Woodbury if he had any other suggestions.  Dave Woodbury asked how long it would take the applicant to apply the Steep Slopes Ordinance to the plan.  He asked what next available meeting date could be scheduled for the applicant.  The Planning Assistant replied that the applicant could be scheduled on the agenda for January, 11, 2005.  Dave Woodbury suggested that the application be adjourned to that date and added that any other issues that could be raised with the application at the next meeting should be determined at tonight’s hearing.  James Nordstrom
CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.

stated that the applicant’s waiver requests were discussed during the preliminary phase of the application and no issues had been raised.  He added that the only outstanding concern had been the issue of fire water supply for the proposed subdivision, which had since been addressed.  The Planning Assistant asked if a waiver on the Fiscal Impact Study had been discussed as it was not requested by the applicant.  James Nordstrom replied that he believed the Board had been comfortable in waiving the three studies of Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact, however, the applicant needed to formally add the waiver request for the Fiscal Impact Study.  Bob Furey asked if, in fairness to the applicant, the fire water supply issue concerning the proposed subdivision was considered resolved.  James Nordstrom replied that it was.  The Chairman noted that the applicant had legally satisfied the requirements of the Sprinkler Ordinance in his plan.  James Nordstrom added that the Town still faced outstanding issues regarding fire water supply, however, in the applicant’s case this item was covered.  
        Bob Furey asked if the applicant would be submitting a plan with final proposed grades and contours.  Art Siciliano, LLS, replied that he did not plan to do so.  Bob Furey noted that he had asked the question as it related to drainage concerns, yet felt the location of the homes had been proposed on level areas which should not create an issue.
        Abutter, Buck Creel stated that his wife, Kathleen Nichols was the trustee of Nichols Real Estate Trust, which owned an adjacent 42-acre parcel to the site.  He added that his wife had received notice of the applicant’s hearing on December 17, 2004, and that this was the first time they had been notified or seen the plan.  He stated that he had not brought a copy of the Nichols deed with him but was under the impression by assessor maps that the dividing line between the Nichols property and the applicant’s was a straight line and was a continuation of an old county road that extended from Butterfield Mill Road to Old Coach Road.  Buck Creel added that this county road was improved past the location of the St. John property.  He asked if he could obtain a copy of the applicant’s plan so that it could be checked against the bounds of the Nichols property.  Buck Creel then asked what the status of the road was that acted as a dividing line between the two properties.  Art Siciliano, LLS, noted a stonewall bound on the plan that acted as the easterly line of the dividing roadway.  Buck Creel asked if his wife should have been noticed prior to December 17, 2004.  The Planning Assistant replied that Kathleen Nichols was in the Town’s database and should have received noticed letters prior to December 17, 2004, therefore, she was unsure as to why she had not.  James Nordstrom clarified that according to the Town’s database any noticed letters concerning the application would have been sent to Ms. Nichols.  Buck Creel stated that he and his wife were surprised when they received her recent notification from the Town and wished that they had been aware of the application during its preliminary phase as they would have requested that the larger lot be located on the western side of the dividing road versus the eastern side.  James Nordstrom explained that the Town employed a two-part process in the application for the subdivision of land, which was preliminary and final.  He noted that tonight’s hearing was the first meeting of the applicant’s final application phase and the preliminary sessions had allowed the applicant to present a proposal and receive input from the Board.  James Nordstrom stated that it was his understanding that abutters were notified of all hearings.  He added that a number of abutters were present and
CURTIS HILL, LLC, cont.

offered input at the applicant’s prior hearings, which was considered by the Board.  Buck Creel stated that upon his review of the plan he felt it complied with the appropriate bylaws but wished he and his wife had been involved at the outset.  He added that he understood it was not a requirement of the overall process that an abutter be comfortable with a plan.  Buck Creel added that he had spoken with the VanCleeves of Francestown, New Hampshire, who also thought they were abutters to the proposed subdivision and had not been notified by the Town.  The Planning Assistant replied that it had been determined during a prior meeting with the applicant that no property owners in the town of Francestown were considered abutters.  Art Siciliano. LLS, noted that the town line bound was a least 100 feet from the perimeter of the site.  James Nordstrom agreed.  Dave Woodbury stated that the town line bound was not easily seen from the road.  The Planning Assistant noted that the assessor maps were not always accurate with this information.  Sam Proctor stated that he would gladly provide a copy of the plan to Mr. Creel.
        James Nordstrom stated that he favored Dave Woodbury’s suggestion to adjourn the applicant’s hearing to another meeting date.  Art Siciliano, LLS, verbally requested a waiver for the Fiscal Impact Study and added that he would apply the Steep Slopes calculation to the plan in the interim.  Sam Proctor asked if a note should be added to the plan, which referenced the calculation applied to the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  James Nordstrom replied that the plan was required to have area computations and that the Ordinance should be self explanatory, however, the applicant could contact the Planning Department with any questions.  Buck Creel asked if written comments in regard to the plan would be accepted by the Board given that the applicant’s hearing would be adjourned.  James Nordstrom replied that they would be.  Dave Woodbury added that abutters were welcomed to attend the applicant’s next scheduled meeting.

        Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn the application of Curtis Hill, LLC, Major       Subdivision, 7 Lots, Location: Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #10/3, “R-A” District, to    January 11, 2005, at 9:15 p.m.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED     unanimously.

VISTA ROAD, LLC Adjourned from 11/23/04
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 read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Brian Holt of Vista Road LLC.  An interested party was John Riendeau, Road Agent.
        Brian Holt stated that the application was awaiting a new Site Specific.  He added that he had spoken with John Riendeau, Road Agent, and the Road Committee regarding new items to be added to the plan.  Brian Holt stated that one item to be addressed was that the road grade be 10% from the proposed road down to the detention ponds and the consolidation of three ponds to one, which would lessen maintenance for the Town.  He added that some changes would also be
VISTA ROAD, LLC (14 Lots), cont.

made to guard rails on the roadway per comments from Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.  The Chairman asked what type of maintenance would be required for the ponds once everything on the site was stabilized.  John Riendeau, Road Agent, replied that if any sediment buildup occurred in the ponds his department would be required to clear that sediment out so that the detention ponds could appropriately handle sheeting water flow and thus limit erosion to surrounding areas.  The Chairman stated that over time the ponds should be maintenance free as in the Waldorf Estates subdivision.  John Riendeau agreed.  Brian Holt added that three to four foot sumps in the catch basins would be used to help catch sediment build up in the roadway.  The Chairman then asked if the catch basin grates in the ditch line would be open or closed.  Brian Holt replied that beehive grates would be used and were a common choice in their subdivisions.  James Nordstrom noted that the Town was against the use of open concrete “C” grates.  Brian Holt replied that “C” grates would not be used.  Bob Furey asked if the reduction in the number of detention ponds from three to one would require a revision to the drainage calculation.  Brian Holt replied that a revision would be done and added that Amy Alexander had raised concern over the .1 CFS, which she noted should be 0.
        The Chairman asked how the guardrails had been revised on the plan.  Brian Holt replied that some of the proposed guardrail would be reduced on the plan due to fill that would be placed on some of the lots.  John Riendeau, Road Agent, added that another issue with the guard rails occurred early in the applicant’s plan design where but ends of the guard railed needed to be radiused out at the driveway entrances in the event a car should be speared on the end of a guard rail if it veered off the road.  The Chairman wondered what type of spearing could occur at 30 m.p.h.  
        Bob Furey asked if the applicant had considered the issue of sight distance at the intersection of Wilson Hill Road and Bedford Road.  Brian Holt agreed that there was a sight distance problem at that intersection but was unaware of any plans to alter it.  John Riendeau, Road Agent, thought the intersection issue was a Town concern and added that he had asked Brian Holt if his company could prepare a rough estimate that would cover improvements to that intersection assuming land owners in that area were willing to become involved.  He added that he also asked Brian Holt to contact Earney Thibeault about possibly contributing funds towards the improvement of the intersection.  The Chairman thought that Earney Thibeault was more likely to offer manpower over funds as his company had the equipment to do the work necessary.  He added that the Board had been fair with Mr. Thibeault in the past and he saw no reason why Mr. Thibeault would not be agreeable to do work that would link his proposed subdivision with safe sight distance at the affected intersection.  The Planning Assistant noted that Roc Larochelle of the Road Committee was currently working on an estimate for improvements to the intersection of Wilson Hill Road and Bedford Road.  John Riendeau, Road Agent, thought the cost would come in around $30K due to the presence of ledge at a corner of the intersection which would needed to be removed.  Brian Holt noted that Thibeault Corporation was not the only company working in that area, therefore, the donation of labor and equipment would be easier than calculating the amount of funds that should be offered towards such a project.  John Riendeau, Road Agent, felt the cost estimate was still necessary in order to determine Vista
VISTA ROAD, LLC (14 Lots), cont.

Road, LLC’s fair share toward such a project whether it be funds or labor.  Brian Holt stated that the donation of labor and equipment would be a simpler route for the applicant.  The Chairman asked if a blue print that detailed proposed improvements to the intersection had been prepared.  John Riendeau, Road Agent, replied that no blue print had been done as the Town would need to contact landowners near the intersection first.  The Chairman asked if the landowners were known.  John Riendeau, Road Agent, replied that they were not but he knew they had been dealt with before in discussion regarding such improvements.  The Chairman felt that it was important to move forward with a plan to improve the intersection and hoped that the abutting landowners would be agreeable.  Brian Holt noted that in any event the Town had the final say if it was deemed necessary to make such improvements to the intersection.  Don Duhaime added that the applicant’s other proposed subdivision of 50-60 lots in the area further tied them to the involvement with the intersection improvements.  Brian Holt replied that he could ask his engineer to do a tentative design layout that would offer adequate sight distance to the Wilson Hill and Bedford Road intersection.  The Chairman noted that the abutting landowner’s authorization was required before the intersection plan proceeded.  Don Duhaime thought a tentative plan should be done so that these landowners had something to consider.  The Chairman agreed.  Brian Holt stated there was no survey done in that area.  The Chairman thought some information should be on file in that regard.  John Riendeau, Road Agent, thought the landowners should be approached by the Town with this inquiry.  Bob Furey asked if the power lines would be an issue if the intersection was to sustain improvements.  Brian Holt replied that the power lines were on that side of the road and would need to be moved if the intersection was to be improved.
        The Planning Assistant stated that Hutchinson Road as noted on the plan could not be titled as “Road” because it was not a through road.  She added that the choices were “Lane” or “Drive”.  Dave Woodbury explained that the road title aided emergency services in the Town who needed to know what roads were through roads or not.  Brian Holt then chose the title of “Lane”.  The Planning Assistant stated that Amy Alexander’s recent E-mail to the Planning Department noted some outstanding comments that would require revisions to the plan.  Dave Woodbury asked if the large amount of Conditions Precedent and Subsequent offered in the motion to approve the applicant’s plan were typical.  The Chairman replied that scenario had happened in prior plans but in the case of the applicant’s the conditions should decrease once the new Site Specific was submitted.  He added that he was not in favor of too many conditions for an application’s acceptance.  The Planning Assistant stated that the Board’s deadline date for action on the application needed to be extended.  The Chairman extended the deadline date to January 30, 2005, which the applicant agreed to.
                
        Dave Woodbury MOVED to extend the deadline date for the Board’s action to January       30, 2005, and to adjourn the application of Vista Road, LLC, Major Subdivision, 14 Lots,        Location: Inkberry and Wilson Hill Roads, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, “R-A” District, to       January 25, 2005, at 9:15 p.m.  James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED       unanimously.
VISTA ROAD, LLC                                 
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Wilson Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Brian Holt of Vista Road, LLC.  No abutters were present.
        Brian Holt stated that waiver requests for the Soils Map, Watershed Outline, Drainage Computations and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies had been submitted.  The Chairman noted that the waivers for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies had been granted at a prior meeting.  He added that he did not recall any issues with the waivers requested.  Bob Furey noted that the driveway access to Lot 6-40-5-1 had 50-foot slope easements on either side and asked if these infringed on the abutters’ property line.  Brian Holt replied that the easements went into the abutters’ property line at the setback but noted that the proposed driveway would not raise an issue because it was now a driveway and not a 24-foot road as proposed in earlier plan designs.  Bob Furey asked what this proposed driveway’s slope became on the current plan.  Brian Holt replied that the slope was between 8-10%.  James Nordstrom asked if that sheet #2 of the plan reflected this driveway design.  Brian Holt replied that was correct.  James Nordstrom noted that the grading for the driveway did encompass the 50-foot slope easements.  Brian Holt noted that these easements were requested in earlier design meetings with the Board so that access to that area was possible.  James Nordstrom agreed and clarified that the easements were existing whether or not they were necessary.  Brian Holt replied that was correct and added that the driveway would not be part of the right-of-way and would be considered private.  James Nordstrom stated that the original intent was to deed that driveway as part of a right-of-way, which was no longer the case.  Brian Holt replied that was correct as it was now a private driveway.  James Nordstrom asked if the home on the proposed Lot #6/40-5-1 would be provided with a sprinkler system.  Brian Holt replied that every home in that area would be provided with a sprinkler system.  The Chairman asked if the application had been accepted as complete.  The Planning Assistant replied that it was accepted as complete on December 23, 2004.  
        Dave Woodbury asked what waivers needed to be acted upon.  The Chairman replied that the Watershed Outline, Drainage Computation and Soils Map still needed to be addressed.

        Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the waivers requests noted in Sections 7-7-R and 6-       7-L, which referred to the Watershed Outline, Drainage Computations and Soils Map as captioned in the letter, received December 6, 2004, by Brian Holt of Vista Road, LLC.      Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.  

        It was noted that a letter from Jeff Kevan, PE, also received on December 6, 2004, requested waivers for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies and was a written follow up to the verbal requests for these waivers made at a prior meeting with the applicant.  The Chairman asked if the driveway to Lot #6/40-5-1 already existed as a roadbed.  Brian
VISTA ROAD, LLC (2 Lots), cont.                         

Holt replied that it did not and those loam and stump materials were currently in that location.  Dave Woodbury noted that a 200 foot square and wetland scientist seal were still missing on the plan.  The Planning Assistant stated that some minor corrections were still needed on the plan.  Brian Holt replied that Peter Schauer had stamped the previous plan when it encompassed the total lot count.  The Chairman noted that a stamp would be required on the revised plan, which broke out the two lots.  Brian Holt replied that he would make sure this was addressed.  The Chairman added that other corrections needed were a missing road entrance location, correction to abutter name and deed reference and the placement of a 200 foot square on the larger parcel lot.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the application of Vista Road, LLC, Major Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, “R-A” District, subject to:
        CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
                1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,                               including any and all checklist corrections and waiver requests noted this evening.
                2. Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD.
                3. Payment of any outstanding fees including the cost of recording the mylar at the                     HCRD.
        The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be June 1, 2005,   confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, requiring no further action by the        Board.  Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request   for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the             Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.    
        Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        James Nordstrom noted that the driveway for Driveway Permit Application 04-106 had a substantial grade to Inkberry Road and, therefore, believed an additional notation for a compliance check on the final apron should be added to the motion for its approval.  The Board agreed.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application 04-106, for        proposed driveway, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway shall    have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a     minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road;    the driveway    intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum;        and, the driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90    degrees.  As part of    the driveway application, it is stipulated that the driveway after construction will be   inspected by the Board or its designee for compliance.  Bob Furey seconded the motion   and it PASSED unanimously.

RIGHT WAY BUILDERS (RICK MARTIN)
HOWARD AND FRANCES TOWNE
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/51 & 5/52
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

       The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and Howard and Frances Towne.  No abutters or interested parties were present.
        Bob Todd, LLS’s, presentation was as follows:

PRESENTATION OUTLINE
FOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION OF RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC. & HOWARD AND FRANCES TOWNE
MAP 5, LOTS 51, & 52
December 28, 2004 Planning Board Meeting

1.0     Introduction
1.1     Robert Todd presenting on behalf of applicants; Right Way Builders and Howard and Frances Towne.

1.2     Proposal involves two tax parcels: 51, and 52.

1.3     In affect this is a lot line adjustment to facilitate
The design of a road to serve a major subdivision
of lots 50 and 52 that is presently before this board
in the design review phase.
         
2.0     Project Objective
2.1     The applicants are requesting approval to move the
existing lot line common to the two parcels so that
Parcel A containing 1.517 acres becomes a part of lot 52 for the purpose of facilitating re-subdivision of lots 52 and 50.

2.2     This prong of the design review relative to said lots
needs to move ahead to satisfy Mr. and Mrs. Towne.  
 
3.0     Land characteristics
3.1     The discussion of the parcels involved need not
be detailed.  The relevant information is about
lot areas and frontages before and after the
application is approved.

3.2     Lot 51 will be reduced in area from 32 acres to 30.5
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS/TOWNE, cont.

Acres.

3.3     Lot 52 will be increased from 26.227 acres to 27.744
Acres.

3.4     The frontage of each lot will not be changed as a
Result of this application.

4.0     Waivers requested include:
4.1     Waivers are requested to the requirement for fiscal,
traffic, and environmental studies;

4.2     A waiver to the requirement for a certified erosion
and sediment control plan is requested;

4.3     The third waiver requested is to the requirement for
a site-specific soils map.

        Dave Woodbury asked if any impacts would be sustained to a recreation trail located in the vicinity of these lots that was discussed at a prior meeting, which dealt with the applicant’s subdivision proposal on the neighboring parcel.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it would not and added that Kim DiPietro, Chairman of the Forestry Committee, planned to speak with the parties involved regarding the protection of the trail in question.  James Nordstrom asked if the applicant’s lot line adjustment would affect the location of where the trail was noted on the plan.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied it would not and noted the trail was proposed to run parallel with the road entry way and run southerly through two breaks in an existing stone wall.  James Nordstrom asked if the applicant’s lot line adjustment would change the ownership of where the trail fell.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it would not.  The Chairman clarified that this was the same lot line adjustment originally proposed in the applicant’s Beard Road subdivision plan but was now singled out on its own.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was correct.  Dave Woodbury clarified that if the lot line adjustment was approved the Townes would have no further interest in the applicant’s major subdivision plan except as abutters.  Howard and Frances Towne concurred.  Dave Woodbury asked if any plans were proposed for the Townes remaining 30.5 acres.  Howard and Frances Towne replied there were no plans proposed.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the waivers requested in the letter dated December      8, 2004, by Bob Todd, LLS, for Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies.  Dave  Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.         

        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Right Way Builders (Rick             Martin)/Howard and Frances Towne, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Beard Road, Tax        Map/Lot #5/51 and 5/52, “R-A” District, as complete.  Dave Woodbury seconded the        motion and it PASSED unanimously.
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS/TOWNE, cont.

        The Chairman asked if there were any further comments and there were none.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the application of Right Way Builders (Rick            Martin)/Howard and Frances Towne, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Beard Road, Tax        Map/Lot #5/51 and 5/52, “R-A” District, subject to:

        CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
                1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,                               including any and all checklist corrections and waiver requests noted this evening.
                2. Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD.
                3. Payment of any outstanding fees including the cost of recording the mylar at the                     HCRD.
        The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be March 1, 2005,  confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, requiring no further action by the        Board.  Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request   for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the             Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.    
        Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

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

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

        The Planning Assistant explained that John Greenwood of RJ Moreau was present this evening to discuss the above compliance for the noted driveways and also issues that concerned the driveways on Lot #’s 27 and 28 which were discussed at the last Planning Board meeting.
The Chairman stated that the driveways for Lot #’s 27 and 28 appeared to be constructed off of a cliff.  John Greenwood submitted septic designs for the driveways to the Board.  He explained that Lot #27 exceed the Town’s maximum allowed driveway grade of 10% while Lot #28 showed a four foot difference in elevation from the road to the end of the driveway which was approximately 100 feet long.  John Greenwood added that he was curious as to what concerns the Board had regarding the latter mentioned driveway where the elevations measured 606 at the road and 602 at the base.  He went on to note that for Lot #27 the driveway had a 10% grade which then increased to a 12.5% grade for approximately 100 feet that was understood as unacceptable by the Town.  John Greenwood suggested that a possible solution considered on the overall septic design was to raise the foundation one foot and move it over 20-25 feet which would afford more room to constructing the driveway to an acceptable grade.  He asked if a contingency could be placed on the plan where a certified plan would be supplied post construction that showed the driveway conformed to a maximum 10% grade for its entire length.  
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

John Greenwood went on to add that because Lot #27’s driveway entrance seemed to force a tight turn at its lot corner, a widening of the driveway was proposed which would allow for a more adequate turn into the driveway and continuation down at a maximum 10% grade.  The Chairman stated that the Board would require an engineered plan of the proposed driveway prior to its construction so that it could be shown to the Town’s emergency service departments and be compared to Town regulations as an acceptable driveway before a Driveway Permit could be given, followed by a Building Permit.  He added that the Board could not supply a Driveway Permit on a verbal authorization that the driveway would conform to Town regulations and rather needed proof by the submission of an engineered driveway plan.  John Greenwood replied that the septic designed showed the layout of the proposed driveway for Lot #27.  James Nordstrom noted that a septic plan designer should not want to be liable for the design of the driveway just because it was noted on his septic plan with existing and proposed contours.  He added that the Town required assurance from a licensed professional that the driveway would conform to Town specifications.  John Greenwood thought that RJ Moreau would be liable for the driveway’s conformance with Town regulations otherwise they would not be able to successfully sell the lot.  The Chairman noted that situations had occurred in the past where Certificates of Occupancy were not issued and a closing occurred which was a scenario he did not want to risk.  He added that he had lived in his own home for ten years without a Certificate of Occupancy.  The Chairman stated that if a licensed engineer could not design a driveway that met the Town’s maximum 10% grade requirement then Lot #27 would not qualify as a lot.  John Greenwood stated that Lot #27 was already approved as a buildable lot.  The Chairman replied that was not an accurate statement and that Lot #27 had merely been represented as a buildable lot.  John Greenwood thought that As Built plans held more weight in the confirmation of adherence to a driveway design rather that a driveway design submitted before construction ensued.  James Nordstrom agreed that As Built plans were also needed in the overall design confirmation.  The Chairman noted that engineered plans certified that a driveway could be built within the Town’s maximum 10% grade requirements and that if such a plan could not be provided the applicant would not receive a Driveway Permit.  
        John Greenwood asked for the Board’s input on Lot #28.  James Nordstrom did not see any issue with a four-foot drop in elevation from the road to the end of the proposed driveway.  Don Duhaime thought in his viewing of Lot #28’s driveway that the drop exceeded four feet.  The Chairman asked that Lot #28’a driveway and its entrance be clearly marked so that he could attempt to view it during the upcoming week.  He then asked the length of Lot #28’s proposed driveway. John Greenwood replied that the length would be approximately 100 feet.  The Chairman thought a four-foot elevation drop should be fairly evident at a 100-foot vantage point from the road.  John Greenwood noted that four feet of fill was proposed to be added to the lot.  Don Duhaime noted that the elevation at the back of the proposed house location was 595 and would likely allow for a walk out basement.  He added that if four feet of fill were added to the lot it would probably look very different.  The Chairman clarified that viewing the lot in its current state would more likely show a 10 foot drop 100 feet in length which was at the maximum grade requirement if no work was done.  
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

        The Chairman stated that he hoped the road seam at the point where Popple Road began from a left turn off of Byam Road would be corrected at the final paving as it veered to the left towards nothing rather than following Popple Road’s curve to the right.
        John Greenwood stated he would obtain a new septic design and have the driveway design portion verified by an engineer.  He explained that he had wanted to ensure the Board that the final resulting driveway would be built to Town specifications which is why he believed a request for a contingency was a better choice.  James Nordstrom noted that because engineered plans would be provided, As Built plans would be required as part of the application’s final approval, which would, therefore, accomplish the same goal with the proof occurring at the outset rather than after construction was completed.  John Greenwood asked if an engineer’s stamp on a septic design plan showing the driveway with As Builts provided after completion was acceptable.  The Chairman thought that would be sufficient.  James Nordstrom noted that it would need to be clarified on the septic design plan that the engineer was only certifying the driveway portion of the plan.     
        In regard to Lot #’s 13 and 20 listed in Miscellaneous Business, James Nordstrom stated that he had not had viewed the proposed driveways.  Dave Woodbury added that he was able to identify the driveway for Lot #13 but unable to do so for Lot #20.  The Chairman asked if any other Board members were able to view the driveways.  Bob Furey and Don Duhaime stated that they had not been able to visit the sites.  The Chairman asked that the lots be properly marked and added that members of the Board would try to view Lot #’s 13 &20 for compliance in the week ahead.  John Greenwood replied that he would do so and assumed the compliance items were raised because these properties were being closed on in the coming week.
           
1.      Approval of minutes of November 23, 2004, with or without changes. (Distributed at the December 14, 2004, meeting.)

        James Nordstrom stated that the word “the” in the phrase “from the Road A” which appeared in the second to last paragraph on page #9 should be stricken.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of November 23, 2004, as amended.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

2.         The minutes of December 14, 2004, were distributed for approval at the January 11, 2005, meeting with or without changes.

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

        The Chairman signed the above noted Driveway Permit Application.

5.      Signature required for a Driveway Permit Application for Thibeault Corp of NE, Wilson
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

        Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-23, by the Planning Board Chairman.  

        John Riendeau, Road Agent, noted that the entrance point for the driveway of Tax Map/Lot #6/41-23, was changed from Byam Road to Wilson Road due to the lots corner  location.  The Chairman then signed the above noted Driveway Permit Application.

7.      A copy of a letter received December 16, 2004, from Karen Heselton, to Zoning and Planning Board, Re: Lull Road Corporation/West Lull Place, was distributed for the Board’s information.

7a.     A copy of a memorandum dated December 20, 2004, to Planning Board Members, from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Letter dated December 16, 2004, from Karen Heselton, was distributed for the Board’s information.

10.     A copy of a fax received December 27, 2004, from Bill Rossignol, Holden Engineering, Re: compliance site walk of Inkberry Road on December 23, 2004, was distributed for the Board’s information.

        John Riendeau, Road Agent, stated that the site walk went well, although one driveway had some water run off and erosion issues.  He suggested that the approval could proceed while a portion of the applicant’s bond money was held until the remaining issues were addressed in the spring season.
        Dave Woodbury stated that Lot #45 was addressed during the site walk and it was noted that guard rails should be extended far down the cliff and a slope easement obtained for maintenance purposes.  He added that the driveway for Lot #45 had been and would continue to be a problem for the Town.  James Nordstrom asked if any work had been done to improve Lot #45.  John Riendeau, Road Agent, replied that no improvements to the lot had been made.  Dave Woodbury added that the lot was almost sold at one point but the deal had fallen through.  James Nordstrom thought the Town should fill in the guardrail opening across the lot as a safety precaution.  Dave Woodbury replied that the location’s current state a car that slid off the public road would be stopped by the guard rail at Lot #45, however, a car that slide off the driveway of Lot #45 would be in danger.  John Riendeau noted that from a Town road standpoint the guardrail on Inkberry Road was sufficient for the safety of traffic that traveled on the roadway itself.  Don Duhaime thought that at the site walk held during the previous summer John Greenwood stated that Holden Engineering had a design in place which showed a guard rail down the length of the driveway for Lot #45.  James Nordstrom concluded that on the Byam Road side of Inkberry Road the guardrail would need to wrap around and follow the driveway contour past the point where the cliff ended in that area.  Dave Woodbury replied that would require the guardrail to extend the entire length of the driveway to the bottom.  James Nordstrom stated that he feared if the road was released without dealing with the matter of Lot #45 it would never be addressed.  He asked Dave Woodbury how he thought the Selectmen would deal with
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

this matter if the Board recommended acceptance of Inkberry Road along with the retention of a portion of the bond for spring improvements.  Dave Woodbury believed the work that was needed on Lot #45 needed to be done off the Town’s right-of-way and on private property.  He agreed with John Riendeau where a car that slid down and off of Inkberry Road at that location was likely to be stopped by the guardrail.  John Riendeau added that a car would have to do a complete U turn to come down Inkberry Road and slide down and off the driveway of Lot #45.  Dave Woodbury thought that James Nordstrom’s idea of filling in the guardrail at Lot #45’s driveway entrance to be a good temporary safety measure.  James Nordstrom thought Lot #45 could be addressed at the point in time when it required a Driveway or Building Permit.  Dave Woodbury agreed.  The Chairman asked if a Driveway Permit existed for Lot #45.  The Planning Assistant replied that a Conditional Use Permit was in place but the driveway had not been approved.  She added that the Conditional Use Permits for Lot #’s 39 and 45 were combined at the time they were requested.  James Nordstrom recalled that an application had been before the Board several years prior, which was put on hold due to wetlands and the guardrail issue.  The Chairman asked the grade of Lot #45’s driveway.  John Riendeau thought the grade was at least at the maximum 10%.  The Chairman asked how old the lot was in consideration that no Driveway Permit was approved.  James Nordstrom replied that the subdivision of Inkberry Road was approved before the Town’s current Driveway Regulations were in place and legal counsel had determined in the late 80’s that the subdivision could not be held in accordance with those Regulations given that fact.  
        The Planning Assistant stated that Inkberry Road was scheduled for a compliance hearing on January 11, 2005.  Dave Woodbury added that Bill Rossignol was supposed to provide additional information along with how much of the Inkberry Road bond should be held.  John Riendeau noted that tonight’s discussion was merely to bring the Board up to date with the road and driveway issues.  Don Duhaime asked if the Town could require a guardrail for the Lot #45 driveway.  The Chairman replied that in the case of a current subdivision plan they could, however, regarding Inkberry Road, the Town lost the affective court case that would have made that action possible.  He added that he did not believe any guard rails even existed on the original plan.  Don Duhaime reiterated the specific mention of designed guardrails for Lot #45 during the summer site walk.  James Nordstrom thought that comment may have come from the septic designer and not an engineer.  Dave Woodbury saw the issue as self solving as he did not think the lot would sell unless the driveway was installed with guardrails.  James Nordstrom noted that otherwise Inkberry Road was in good shape.  Dave Woodbury noted that previous erosion issues from several years ago were most likely addressed.  John Riendeau agreed and noted that only a few small spots remained.

11.     Zoning Board of Adjustment minutes of December 21, 2004, Re:  Lull Road Corporation, for the Board’s information.

        The Chairman requested an overview of the Gravel Permit process.  Dave Woodbury believed it began with authorization by the ZBA followed by the Selectmen who worked in
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

accordance with the State statute.  The Chairman stated that he saw a reference in the minutes of a recent ZBA meeting with Lull Road Corporation that noted the number of trips allowed by gravelling trucks which he believed would be a great waste of time for the Building Inspector to track.  Dave Woodbury stated that because the Lull Road Corporation project had rerouted the gravel trucks north through the land of Clifton Wilson and not through West Lull Place some of that issue should be diffused.  He added that PWA’s concern about graveling in close proximity to the river still remained in the forefront.  Dave Woodbury further noted that the ZBA would decide whether a gravel pit could be zoned in an “R-A” District.  The Chairman thought that the ZBA had made mention of counting trucks and stressed that if this was a recommendation for the Lull Road Corporation project it should be more generalized to recommend no more than 100 trucks per day otherwise Selectmen and other Town officials would be wasting much of their time counting trucks at the site.   The Planning Assistant noted that many in the Town were closely scrutinizing this project.  Dave Woodbury stated that a joint meeting with the ZBA and the Board was scheduled for February, 2005.  The Planning Assistant noted that the joint meeting would be held on a scheduled ZBA meeting night.

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

        This item was discussed in conjunction with item #9, which follows.     

9.      Memo dated December 28, 2004, from Nicola Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, to the Board and Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant, Re:  Driveway Regulations, for the Board’s review and discussion.

        The Chairman asked John Riendeau, Road Agent, what he wished to contribute to the discussion on the Driveway Regulations.  John Riendeau stated that he thought Section 16.1 should be reworded slightly as it currently inferred that a driveway was not usable until the final permit was issued.  
        John Riendeau, Road Agent, then noted that the 20-foot measure for a driveway radius seemed excessive.  He asked James Nordstrom if that had been his suggestion.  James Nordstrom replied that it had not been and that he had suggested 10 feet.  John Riendeau agreed that 10 feet seemed more acceptable and also thought it was the measure used in the past.  He added that a 20-foot radius would begin at the edge of the right-of-way 14 feet from the pavement and including a 10-foot wide driveway would net 38 feet of width at the entrance from the road.  The Chairman agreed that the radius should be changed from 20 to 10 feet.
        John Riendeau stated that in Permit to Use forms wording should be included that referenced a recheck for a 3% grade if a driveway fell into the category of having a negative grade to the culvert.
        The Chairman then asked John Riendeau, Road Agent, if he was willing to inform individuals whose driveways did not meet Town specifications, such as in the example of circular driveways that they were in the wrong.  He referenced a specific example of a property
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

owner on Carriage Road with a circular driveway who stated that the Road Agent had approved his circular driveway design.  The Chairman added that in previous conversations with the Board the Road Agent had agreed that a circular driveway with 100 feet between curb cuts could be considered, however, in the Carriage Road example the circular driveway only had 60 feet of width between curb cuts but was supposedly approved.  John Riendeau, Road Agent, replied that he had not given his approval nor had he met the property owners who made the claim.  The Planning Assistant noted that it was actually Mitch Larochelle who had stated that the Road Agent had given his approval on the Carriage Road circular driveway.  The Chairman stated that the new Driveway Regulations would be meaningless if they were not properly enforced.  He added that an important and directly related issue was that water wash out into Town ditchlines be prevented.  John Riendeau, Road Agent, agreed.  John Riendeau, Road Agent, asked if he had signed off on the Carriage Road circular driveway.  The Planning Assistant replied that he had not and that it was still in a pending status because it did not conform to its specifications.  The Chairman stated that if individuals in the Town disagreed with or wanted to alter driveway specifications they should petition a Town vote or convince the Board to make a change to the Regulations.  He added that the involved owners on Carriage Road should have planned an alternate placement for their homes where a circular driveway would have been possible and required only one curb cut rather than two.  John Riendeau, Road Agent, wanted to assure the Board’s support before he approached the owners about eliminating their circular driveways.  The Chairman replied that he was in full support of the Road Agent and his task at hand.  He added that the second curb cut of the circular drive was in the Town’s ditchline and it was the Town’s job to maintain such ditchlines.  John Riendeau noted that Certificates of Occupancy were being signed without his authorization on the Driveway Permit, which eliminated his leverage.  The Chairman agreed but noted that such individuals could still be held in violation of Town Regulations.  The Planning Assistant stated that one of the Carriage Road residents with a circular driveway approached her several times to question the status of the issue.  John Riendeau stated that the status was that the circular driveway needed to be removed and a letter should be sent to parties involved that stated if the driveways were not removed by the spring of 2005 the Town would remove them.  The Planning Assistant noted that Dennis Sarette, Building Inspector, had offered some good points regarding the circular driveway issue that the Board should review.  
        Dave Woodbury asked when the original draft of Driveway Regulations was compiled.  James Nordstrom replied that he believed the original drafting began in 1997 and was rebirthed in 2000 with the some of the same intent but many changes.   Dave Woodbury thought that with only comments from the Building Inspector and the Planning Coordinator he was unsure how much thoughtful discussion could be had on the subject at tonight’s meeting.  James Nordstrom added that the length of the drafting process had become a problem over time and many involved parties had made changes back and forth within the draft  John Riendeau, Road Agent, stated that he was anxious for a resolution so that approved Regulations could be in place for the Town.  James Nordstrom noted that for an existing lot of record, currently the Driveway Permit was the only binding agreement for the driveway and there were no regulations that governed what was
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

and was not allowed.  Dave Woodbury asked if the Driveway Regulations were meant to supercede and apply to all driveways, i.e., new subdivisions and existing lots.  John Riendeau replied that was correct.  Dave Woodbury added that any inconsistencies in the present Subdivision Regulations, if they existed in contrast to the Driveway Regulations, would need to be repealed.  James Nordstrom was unsure if any inconsistencies existed but noted that a comparison between the two sets of Regulations had been performed in the past.  He added that so many changes had taken place since that time that he felt another comparison was warranted and questioned when it should take place.  Dave Woodbury wondered why the Planning Coordinator’s objections came at such a late point in the process of the draft.  James Nordstrom noted that many changes had been made to the draft when the Coordinator was on leave, therefore, she may not have been aware of its progression.  The Chairman noted that more than one Committee had been involved in the drafts and that it had continuously changed and evolved over time.  Bob Furey asked if the Driveway Regulations were meant to apply to all existing driveways in the Town.  John Riendeau replied that only new driveways would be subject to the Driveway Regulations.  Dave Woodbury noted that a statement to the contrary appeared in the draft.  The Planning Assistant replied that the Building Inspector’s memo alluded to that reference.
        As an aside, the Chairman asked John Riendeau, Road Agent, his thoughts on the home on Bedford Road with excessive driveway entrance lighting and the ice buildup that had occurred in front of the home on the main road.  Don Duhaime stated that he lived across from the home in question and that ice buildup onto Bedford Road had recently caused a car to lose control and knock out his granite mail post.  The Road Agent replied that because of the icing he was unable to address the ditchline until the spring.  He explained that the ice buildup occurred because the swale on the lot was not deep enough down the side of the road and should have been a two-foot ditch with a culvert across the driveway.  James Nordstrom noted that what the Board recommended and what the builder was allowed to do at the time the lot was developed were two different things.  He agreed that a 2-foot ditch should have been in place and a culvert placed across the driveway.  John Riendeau added that riprap was placed in a minimally dug swale.  The Chairman recalled that a culvert across the driveway was suggested by the Board after it was paved, and as the original plan required, but there was not enough support of the Board to bring that suggestion to fruition.  He also believed this driveway to be the last authorization given by the former Road Agent before he retired.  Don Duhaime asked if compliance had been given for the road network in the area of the home in question.  The Chairman replied that the issue was involved because the road network was actually a common driveway.  Don Duhaime asked why the Town could not become more involved if the plans had not been conformed to.  James Nordstrom replied that the Town had approved the driveway so could not return to the issue.  
        The Chairman stated that the Board now had input from the Road Agent and the Building Inspector and asked if the Board agreed with the Building Inspectors suggestions and would like to proceed to a sixth draft.  
        The Planning Assistant noted that one or two sections still required discussion by the
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

Board.  She noted that on page #2, Section 7.8, the Building Inspector thought that the phrase: “…and the Road Agent shall handle the permitting process without Planning Board intervention…” should be included.  James Nordstrom clarified that the Planning Department could still handle lot restriction or scenic road issues, etc.  The Planning Assistant asked if this meant the Driveway Permit would be generated from the office of the Road Agent.  James Nordstrom replied that it would although he was not sure if it was procedurally feasible.  The Road Agent noted that he would need a full time secretary if that was to be the case.  James Nordstrom asked the Road Agent his opinion regarding the Building Inspector’s suggestion.  The Road Agent replied that he preferred the Board’s involvement in the preliminary phases of a driveway plan because their input was helpful.  He added that he saw no reason why he could not handle the final inspections without the Board’s involvement.  The Chairman asked Willard Dodge, from the audience, if he had any input.  Willard Dodge stated that he had discussed Driveway Regulation issues with the Road Agent many times and the two parties were not in full agreement on every topic.  He noted that it should be considered very important to address water run off in the roads, which was mentioned earlier in discussion as winter icing was a hazardous condition in the Town.  Secondly, he added that the initial 3% grade approach from the roadway needed to be addressed as it was also an important safety feature.  John Riendeau, Road Agent, replied that this item would be addressed in the new Regulations but the wording changed from a -3%, 14 feet from the centerline of the roadway, to the center of the ditchline in the case of driveways that went uphill.  Willard Dodge noted that the Town agencies needed to work together successfully so that the Regulations would be effective.  The Chairman noted that at times when complete adherence to the Regulations was considered ineffective it was again the job of the Board and other Town agencies to reach an acceptable solution together.  The Road Agent reiterated that this was why he preferred the Board’s input at the outset of a driveway plan.  James Nordstrom explained that he asked the Road Agent his opinion because in the case of Scott Belanger’s driveway he and the former Road Agent had suggested the inclusion of a well defined ditchline and a culvert, however, they were told that the Planning Board should not have become involved in the construction aspect and should concentrate on land use issues only.  He noted that the former Road Agent had a contrary opinion to John Riendeau’s concerning the Board’s involvement in driveway reviews and that as Willard Dodge suggested, if the departments worked together effectively problems of that nature could be avoided.  John Riendeau, Road Agent, agreed.  The Chairman added that he agreed the two agencies should work together and noted that he would not be in favor of turning over the driveway approval process to a predecessor as he/she might not have experience in that venue.  He added that the clause contained in the motion to approve driveways noted: “…a member of the Planning Board or their designee…” which he felt covered the option for the Road Agent to handle final inspections with or without the Board’s input.  Willard Dodge agreed that it was imperative for the Town agencies to work together because successors to Town agents may not have the qualifications or experience to handle such issues properly.  The Road Agent also agreed.
        The Planning Assistant stated that the Building Inspector questioned the 30-foot maximum width of driveways as noted in Section 9.8 and felt that an owner should be allowed to
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

increase that width if needed.  James Nordstrom and the Road Agent strongly disagreed.  James
Nordstrom did not think 30 feet of width was restrictive in any way.  The Road Agent noted that
Town roads were only 22 feet wide.
        The Planning Assistant stated that the Building Inspector requested that a time frame be added to Section 7.14 where a lead-time of 14 days was required by the Road Agent to inspect driveways prior to the owner going to the Building Inspector to request a Certificate of Occupancy.  The Road Agent was in full agreement and felt 14 days was a sufficient time period.
        The Planning Assistant stated the Building Inspector felt that Section 11 seemed to discourage common driveways which was contrary to phrasing in a previous section that dealt with driveway construction.  She added that in regard to secondary driveways the Building Inspector questioned the 200-foot distance and thought that the distance between secondary driveways and the entrances of circular driveways should be the same.  Bob Furey asked the definition of a secondary driveway.  The Planning Assistant replied that it was a second access to a lot.  Bob Furey asked if a secondary driveway was allowed to connect to its primary in which case a circular driveway would result.  James Nordstrom stated that he did not agree with the Building Inspector’s opinion that Section #11 discouraged common driveways.  Bob Furey thought that if circular driveways were not to be allowed then secondary driveways should be prohibited also due to the curb cut issue.  James Nordstrom suggested the elimination of Section 12.3.  The Planning Assistant asked if the 200-foot distance requirement should be retained.  The Chairman thought it would be feasible for a large lot or if a second driveway was needed to access a barn on a property.  Bob Furey asked if Section 11 should also be eliminated.  The Chairman noted that Section 11 dealt with the practicality of curb cuts and did not agree that it discouraged common driveways.
        The Planning Assistant stated that the Building Inspector thought the section that dealt with temporary driveways should be more streamlined and involves only the Road Agent.  The Chairman agreed and asked the Road Agent if would be willing to handle bond posting issues as they related to damage insurance for public roadways.  The Road Agent replied that the only concern he had was how much money should be required and thought a set of guidelines could be established to dictate a formula to that effect.  The Chairman noted that administrative costs should be part of that formula also.  James Nordstrom noted that in order for the Road Agent to generate a cost estimate, a construction process to adhere to would be required.  The Chairman asked how the Road Agent felt about taking this responsibility.  The Road Agent replied that once the process was in place it would be manageable but asked where the bonding process would be handled.  James Nordstrom noted that because the Highway Department had no administrative support the burden would fall to the Planning Department.  The Planning Assistant asked if the Temporary Driveway section should remain as written.  James Nordstrom clarified that the Planning Department could handle the bond and the Road Agent could issue a temporary permit.  The Chairman noted that once the Road Agent had reviewed the temporary driveway site he could report his findings to the Planning Department and they could then address the bond.  The Road Agent added that an additional form should be included with
temporary permits that instructed an applicant of their damage liabilities and methods of
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

prevention.
        The Planning Assistant stated that in Section 9 safe sight distance was listed as 200 feet while Section 9.5 stated it as 300 feet.  James Nordstrom stated the correct number was 300 feet as calculated for the minimum safe sight distance on a 35 m.p.h. road.
        The Planning Assistant stated that the Building Inspector thought Section 17.2 should include a time frame for the Road Agent post construction inspection and prior to a Certificate of Occupancy and should also included the requirement that the Permit to Use be forwarded to the Building Inspector.  James Nordstrom clarified that this was the same issue as the 14-day period between a Driveway Permit and Building Permit but now at the other end of the construction period between Driveway Permit and Certificate of Occupancy. Bob Furey stated that he thought a Certificate of Occupancy could be obtained prior to an approved Driveway Permit.  James Nordstrom and John Riendeau, Road Agent, replied that scenario was not supposed to occur.  James Nordstrom asked the Road Agent if a 14-day timetable would be acceptable between the Driveway Permit Approval and issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.  The Road Agent thought that time frame was satisfactory.  
        The Planning Assistant noted that the bonding requirement listed for driveway aprons seemed too low at $250.00.  The Chairman asked the cost of a driveway apron.  James Nordstrom thought the cost would fall between $1K and $2K.  The Chairman suggested increasing the cost from $250.00 to $1,250.00.
        The Chairman thought the $10.00 driveway fee should be eliminated.  John Riendeau thought a Driveway Permit process should remain in place as many driveways in Town had been inadvertently altered and damage done to swales, etc. during the paving process.  The Chairman asked how a notification could be in place that would trigger a compliance check on driveways once work was completed and cover administrative costs because at present the wording of the driveway fee made seemed to infer that the money was merely being deposited in the Town’s general fund.  The Planning Assistant noted that many individuals were unaware that a permit was needed in order to pave a driveway.  James Nordstrom agreed.  The Chairman stated that currently there was no also measure in place to check a driveway’s variance from its original state post paving.  James Nordstrom noted that driveways would still be paved in the future without permits.  John Riendeau, Road Agent, added that this was a difficult permit to enforce.  Willard Dodge further added that with no Driveway Permit the Town had no leverage.
        The Planning Assistant asked that the Board review Section 6 as noted on the front of the Coordinator’s memo.  Upon review James Nordstrom replied that if an ordinance was adopted and a Driveway Permit had already been issued the adoption did not void the permit.  He added that this fact was upheld many time by the New Hampshire courts.  Bob Furey asked how driveways pending approval would be addressed.  James Nordstrom replied that was a different situation.  
        Bob Furey asked what could be done to alleviate Don Duhaime’s neighbor’s issue.  James Nordstrom replied that was a civil issue.
        The Planning Assistant stated that she would incorporate changes discussed this evening into a sixth draft version of Driveway Regulations.  Bob Furey added that he would revised the
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

        radii drawings for the draft.

3.      Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan, for Daniel Donovan, Bedford Road, Map/Lot # 9/63, by the Planning Board Chairman, and Secretary.

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

        At 10:35 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Bob Furey seconded the
        motion and it PASSED unanimously.

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