The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members James Nordstrom and Christopher Johnson; ex-officio Christine Quirk; and, alternates Bob Furey and Don Duhaime. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nicola Strong and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, were Brandy Mitroff, Jonathan Willard, Brian Holt, Dean Glow, Dana Lorden, Jay Marden, Ray Shea, Randy Haight, LLS, Terry O’Connor, Bob and June Edwards, Christine and Andrzej Pedzik, Eric Mitchell, LLS, Kristi Citak, Sarah Madden and Amy Alexander.
NISSITISSIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC (APPLICANT) Adjourned from 04/27/04
FREDERICK & CELIA LORDEN, TRUSTEES (OWNER)
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/14 Lots
Location: McCurdy Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/17, 18 & 19
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Randy Haight, LLS, who represented the applicant. Also present were Dana Lorden and Dean Glow, and Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.
Randy Haight, LLS, stated that representatives of Meridian Land Services had met with Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry Inc., to review several outstanding issues on the plans that were discussed at the prior Planning Board meeting.
Randy Haight, LLS, stated that Notes #21 and 22 were added to the plans that addressed the potential for a future road crossing culvert if the Road Agent thought it necessary and regrading the northerly ditchline on McCurdy Road for sight distance.
Mr. Haight, LLS, explained that Amy Alexander had suggested removing the easements and detention basin located near Lots #9 and #10 as it would need to be maintained by the owners of those lots and this was not always handled properly. With this removal, the drainage calculations for the plan would need to be amended, however, Mr. Haight, LLS, left the detention basin and easements on the submitted plans for the Board’s opinion. Amy Alexander had reviewed those plans and asked that the pond be removed, so further revised plans were submitted without the detention pond.
Mr. Haight, LLS, stated that a compromise regarding sight distance had been agreed upon with Amy Alexander for 400 feet of sight distance, 10 feet off the traveled way at 3.5 feet in height rather than the previous measures of 465 feet sight distance, 14.5 feet off the traveled way, 3.75 feet in height. He added that the new sight distance plan sheet replaced the former detail sheet for the detention basin and the plan index had been appropriately updated.
Mr. Haight, LLS, stated that Note #12 on the plans corrected the proposed road name from Forest Drive to Warren Drive as approved by the Selectmen. He added that he had also received Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s letter which confirmed all their engineering criteria had been satisfied.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she had received revised plans and the Coordinator replied that she had.
NISSITISSIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, cont.
The Chairman asked Amy Alexander if she had any further questions or comments. Amy Alexander stated that it had been decided that the detention basin located near Lot #9 and Lot #10 be removed from the plans as it was merely being used to make the drainage calculations work and that it was more appropriate to not impact that land and have it remain in its natural state.
She added that she and Mr. Haight, LLS, agreed with adding a culvert at station #4 on the plans if the Road Agent thought it necessary. Amy Alexander further added that the sight distance issues previously overviewed by Mr. Haight, LLS, were satisfactorily solved and that no tree cutting was warranted as a result which was an issue that had concerned the Board. Amy Alexander explained that a combination of AASHTO and NHDOT standards were employed to handle this sight distance issue and she felt they had reached a reasonable compromise in the outcome.
The Chairman stated that there were some outstanding waiver requests. Mr. Haight, LLS, replied that he thought the two outstanding waiver requests had been acted upon at a prior Planning Board meeting. He added that the first waiver request dealt with the 400’ area outside the property not being included in the drainage calculation and the second waiver request involved McCurdy Road’s increased grade above the regulation of 8% where it met the driveway for Lot #14. The Coordinator stated that these waiver requests were submitted previously but the Board still needed to act upon them.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept and grant the two waivers previously submitted by Randy Haight, LLS, in his letter dated March 23, 2004. Christopher Johnson seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Randy Haight, LLS, noted that a sample deed that included legal language for fire sprinklers had been submitted to Bill Drescher, Esq. The Chairman said that the Board had not yet heard back from Town Counsel regarding that item.
The Chairman asked Amy Alexander if she had any further comments and she did not.
The Chairman then wished to confirm that the driveway to Lot #6 would remain on McCurdy Road as discussed at previous meetings and not be relocated to Warren Drive. Mr. Haight, LLS, stated that this was correct.
Christine Quirk asked if a name change on the plans was made to McCurdy Development from Nissitissit Development, LLC. Randy Haight, LLS, replied that the developer name was still Nissitissit Development, LLC.
The Chairman asked if the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan met the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations V-V. The Coordinator replied that the Plan had been reviewed by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., but not discussed by the Board. The Chairman asked Amy Alexander for her thoughts on this review and she replied that she saw no problems with it.
The Chairman asked if Town Counsel had any documentation that the Board did not. Mr. Haight, LLS, thought that both entities possessed identical information at this time. The Coordinator noted that the Board may not have revised copies of documents that were submitted
NISSITISSIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, cont.
to Town Counsel. Mr. Haight, LLS, stated he was glad to provide anything that the Board required.
The Chairman stated that Bill Drescher, Esq., questioned the company name of McCurdy Development, LLC, on the Declaration of Use Covenants versus Nissitissit Development, LLC. Randy Haight, LLS, replied that Nissitissit Development, LLC, was the entity responsible for developing the subdivision while McCurdy Development, LLC, was the builder. The
Coordinator added that Bill Drescher, Esq., said that this document would need revision due to the confusion regarding the new company name. The Chairman asked who had the right to enforce the covenants for this development. Randy Haight, LLS, replied he would abide by the Board’s opinion on that matter. The Chairman thought that Nissitissit Development, LLC, should be the listed name on the Declaration of Use Covenants and Mr. Haight, LLS, concurred. The Chairman asked Amy Alexander if she had determined the construction monitoring inspection fees for this plan. Amy Alexander replied that she had only finished the review two days prior and would provide the fee information to the Coordinator shortly.
The Chairman asked the Board if they wished to proceed with the approval process for this plan although some legal document review was pending. The Board was in agreement to continue. The Coordinator added that the bond and inspection amount items in the Conditions Precedent portion of the approval could be forwarded to the Board by Dufresne-Henry, Inc.
Christine Quirk MOVED to approve the Consolidation and Subdivision Plan, Forest View, Land of Frederick & Celia Lorden, Prepared for Nissitissit Development, LLC, Tax Map 12 Lots 17, 18 & 19, McCurdy Road, such that Parcel “A” of 0.657 acres is annexed from Tax Map/Lot #12/19 to Tax Map/Lot #12/18 to provide access to one residential lot from the proposed Warren Drive and such that Tax Map/Lot #12/17 is consolidated with Tax Map/Lot #12/19 and the resulting assemblage is subdivided into fourteen lots, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,
including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
2. Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Digital plat data shall be permitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
4. Receipt of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s approval of the road plans and profiles.
5. Receipt of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s approval of the road bond estimate amount.
6. Receipt of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s estimate for construction monitoring inspections.
7. Submission of the language of the form of the security for review and approval by Town Counsel, the cost of which review shall be borne by the applicant.
8. Submission of the security, in the amount to be determined by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., and in the form of a bond, for the construction of Warren Drive as shown on the approved plans and profiles.
9. Submission of the estimated construction inspection fees regarding the
NISSITISSIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, cont.
construction of Warren Drive, in the amount to be determined by
Dufresne-Henry, Inc. A mandatory pre-construction meeting is required to be held
with the developer/agent, road contractor, Town’s Road Agent, and representatives
of the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen, as well as the Town’s consulting
engineer, prior to the start of the road construction project.
10. Approval of the language of the Declaration of Use Covenants and Restrictions
regarding the installation of sprinkler systems in each house in the subdivision and
deed language that would incorporate that requirement, by Town Counsel, the
cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
11. Submission of executed Declaration of Use Covenants and Restrictions regarding
sprinkler systems. The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the
applicant.
12. Approval of the language of the Declaration of Easements and Restrictions by
Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
13. Approval of the language of the road deed by Town Counsel, the cost of which
shall be borne by the applicant.
14. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
15. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the
recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
16. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be August
25, 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. Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved subdivision.
2. Warren Drive is to be constructed in accordance with the Application for Inspection
and in accordance with the approved plans and profiles. After the base (binder)
course of pavement is approved by the Road Agent/town’s engineer, the
developer will allow the road to set over one winter, during which time the
developer will be liable for the road, including, but not limited to, winter
maintenance thereof. The wearing (finish) course of pavement shall be applied
no later than one (1) year from the date of application of the binder course. The
Application for Inspection must be turned into the Planning Department after the
road is 100% complete, in order to initiate final inspection and acceptance of the
NISSITISSIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, cont.
road, and the release of the security for same after a compliance inspection and
hearing is held.
3. Driveway locations on Warren Drive shall be approved at sub-grade and driveways
shall be installed through binder to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town
engineer and in conformance with the Application for Inspection and approved
driveway permits.
4. Per Subdivision Regulations Section V-S, 1, J), As-Built plans showing the
final location of any slope/drainage easement areas, and driveways, and the final
road construction details, in the form of three paper print copies and one electronic
file, certified by the applicant’s engineer that the layout of the line and grade of all
public improvements is in accordance with the approved construction plans of the
subdivision, shall be submitted for review by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., prior to the
issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy within the subdivision.
5. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations IV-F, 3.
6. Submission of executed Deeds of Easement to the Town of New Boston for any
slope and/or drainage easement areas identified on the plans. The cost of recording
at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
7. Submission of executed Warranty Deed for Warren Drive. Payment of recording
fees at HCRD shall be made by the applicant.
8. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording
same with the HCRD.
9. The applicant shall install road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) to the
satisfaction of the Road Agent.
10. Driveway permits must be completed for acceptable installation by the Road Agent
and Planning Board prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy (CO’s)
for the related lots.
11. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until the sprinkler systems are
installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or
their designee and the driveways are installed and approved by the Road Agent and
the Planning Board and the road is installed through binder pavement and the road
identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) are installed to the satisfaction of the Road
Agent/town’s engineer and any guard rails are installed to the satisfaction of the
Road Agent/town’s engineer and the As-Built plans have been reviewed and
approved by the town’s engineer.
12. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the
recording of documents with the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be September 30, 2004, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing to be held on the application. Prior to the acceptance of the completed road by the Town, an acceptable
two year maintenance bond must be submitted by the applicant for the road in the amount
of 10% of the performance bond value.
NISSITISSIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, cont.
Christopher Johnson seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Randy Haight, LLS, asked if Town Counsel would communicate opinion on the outstanding legal documents through the applicant’s attorney. The Chairman responded that Town Counsel would notify the Board and the Coordinator would then notify the applicant.
The Chairman asked Randy Haight, LLS, if he felt that the conceptual work done for the site plan was worthwhile to the overall process. Mr. Haight, LLS, replied that he felt the preliminary work done to the plan was indeed beneficial.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 25, 2004
1. Approval of minutes of April 27, 2003, with or without changes.
(Distributed at the May 11th meeting)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of April 27, 2003, as written.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of May 11, 2004, were distributed for approval at the meeting of June 8, 2004, with or without changes.
3. Approval of Driveway Permit Applications for Seff Enterprises & Holdings, 3 Foxberry Drive, Tax Map/Lot #8/84-32, 8/84-33, 8/84-34, 8/84-35, 8/84-43, 8/84-44, for proposed driveway, for the Board’s action. (Distributed at May 11th meeting) see recently submitted lot sketches.
The Coordinator stated that the Road Agent had not yet authorized these permits.
Christine Quirk said she had viewed the driveways and noticed two that seemed to have steep slope issues. The Chairman asked if these driveways could have follow up inspection by the Planning Board and the Coordinator said they could. After review of the submitted lot sketches, the Board concluded that several driveways had the potential for steep slope issues, namely, Lot #’s 32 through 35. These lots, the Chairman added, would need further inspection and the Board’s compliance verification. The Board felt that Lot #’s 43 & 44 were flat and would not have slope issues.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Applications for Seff Enterprises & Holdings, 3 Foxberry Drive, Tax Map/Lot #8/84-32, 8/84-33, 8/84-34, 8/84-35, 8/84- 43, 8/84-44, for proposed driveways, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the
centerline of the road; the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the driveway shall intersect with the road at an
angle of 60-90 degrees. As part of the driveway applications, the lot development sketches attached, dated 9/27/04, revised 5/11/04, which depict the driveway location, grading and house location are approved. Any significant deviation in the field shall require resubmittal to the Planning Board. The driveways with the exception of lots 43 & 44 shall be inspected by the Planning Board for compliance. Christopher Johnson seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman then signed the Driveway Permit Applications.
4. Driveway Permit Applications for R.J Moreau Communities, LLC, Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-2, 6/32-3, 6/32-18, 6/32-19, 6/32-20, 6/32-21, for proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.
(Drive By Prior to Meeting)
James Nordstrom stated that he had seen driveway locations staked and marked at lots located directly off Wilson Hill Road, but that the lots further into the development were not properly marked. The Chairman stated that the Board should wait for the Road Agents
comments along with clearer markings for all the driveway locations before approval of these Driveway Permit Applications. The Board agreed.
6. Copies of a letter dated May 14, 2004, from Bill Drescher, Esq., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Review of Materials, Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot # 8/118, were distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
James Nordstrom concluded that Bill Drescher, Esq., disagreed with the applicant’s legal opinion. The Chairman asked for a suggested course of action. The Coordinator replied that the Board could release this letter to the applicant or instead forward a letter of explanation to the applicant that summarized the letter’s content.
The Chairman asked if abutters to this property could enforce the proposed development’s covenants while the Town could not. The Coordinator replied that abutters were allowed to challenge covenants, in this case, whether further subdivision could take place. The Chairman thought that if this plan was for a subdivision then the access needed to be classified as a road. James Nordstrom thought Bill Drescher, Esq.’s opinion was the same, in that access to a subdivision needed to be a Town maintained road.
The Chairman stated that he was not agreeable to release the entire letter to the applicant. James Nordstrom agreed and added that because the letter contained substantial case law and research, a summarized version to the applicant was more appropriate.
The Chairman thought that Town Counsel’s opinion for a subdivision requirement should be included in the summarized letter. James Nordstrom stated that if the plan was for a multi-family residence then a subdivision was not required. The Coordinator believed that the applicant’s direction was toward condominium classification. The Chairman was concerned that
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
the applicant might classify this build as apartments to avoid the roadway issue and later type change to condominiums once plan approvals were in place.
From the audience, Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., stated that in another town she worked with such a change of use required that a driveway into such a complex be upgraded to a Town road. The Coordinator noted that the Town had no legal rights to make an applicant subdivide after an approval was granted based on an apartment classification. Amy Alexander added that a condominium complex access could not be accepted as a road until it was upgraded to Town Standards. The Coordinator said she could contact Bill Drescher, Esq., for his opinion.
Bob Furey asked if the classification could be change to condominiums before occupancy certificates were granted. The Chairman replied that he would not be surprised if such action took place as the applicant had referenced condexing the building. He then added that the Board’s consensus was required regarding what letter form was sent back to the applicant. The Board thought that Bill Drescher, Esq.’s letter should be retained and a brief summary sent to the applicant. The Coordinator stated that she would compose a summarized letter to the applicant that highlighted Bill Drescher, Esq.’s conclusions regarding subdivisions and Town roads.
An interested party, Jay Marden, asked the location of this proposed build. The Chairman replied that the location was Clark Hill Road.
7. A copy of letter dated May 11, 2004, to Board of Selectmen, from Melissa Harvey, Re: Home Business, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman noted that Melissa Harvey proposed to make cakes for the farmers market out of her house on Carriage Road.
The Chairman noted that the Planning Board’s standard letter should be sent acknowledging the statements in Melissa Harvey’s letter that there would be no business sign, no customers coming to the site, no exterior storage of materials and no employees and notifying her that should any of those conditions change she should inform the Board in order to determine whether or not a site plan review would be required.
8. A copy of a letter dated May 14, 2004, to Mr. Gordon Carlstrom, Board of Selectmen, from Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, Re: New Boston Representative term, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that the SNHPC meetings were held during daytime hours and that if no Planning Board members were able to attend, that Brent Armstrong was willing to continue in that role.
Christopher Johnson MOVED to recommend to the Board of Selectmen that Brent Armstrong continue as New Boston Representative to the SNHPC. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
9. Memorandum dated May 13, 2004, from Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, to
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
Planning Board, Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Vista Road, LLC, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that this memo was a follow up to her verbal explanation at the last meeting regarding the Town Administrator’s request that the Vista Road, LLC, roadway plans be sent to the Town Engineer before the Road Committee would include their comments. Then when Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s review was done, but before the report was written up, the Road Agent, Road Committee and Dufresne-Henry, Inc., should get together to compare notes.
The Chairman asked Amy Alexander if she had read this letter. Amy Alexander said she had not but was not against having her reviews checked once they were completed. She added that she thought her reviews to be thorough enough so that subsequent issues would not be raised. Amy Alexander further added that she always sought the Road Agent’s concerns and input during her reviews. The Chairman noted that the Planning Board desired this sequence in
the plan review process and did not want to wait to give Dufresne-Henry, Inc., all the available information. Amy Alexander further added that she reviewed road plans with the Road Agent’s maintenance responsibilities in mind and not merely by engineering calculations.
James Nordstrom stated that he was less hesitant to follow the Town Administrator’s suggestion for the plan review sequence in this letter. He added that initially he thought the tone of the suggestion was that the Town test Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s plan reviews, but now thought that this memo was suggesting a more collaborative effort so that the Planning Board was supplied with as much information on plan reviews as possible.
The Chairman thought that the letter suggested that the Planning Board might approve a road having not considered opinions from other Town entities. He noted that the Road Committee had declined to submit their comments on the plans. From the audience, Brandy Mitroff said that she disagreed with the Chairman’s portrayal of events at the last meeting. The Coordinator noted to Brandy Mitroff that there might be confusion between a previous Planning Board meeting discussion and the conversation that the Coordinator had with the Town Administrator on this topic. (This item needed to be continued as it was time for the next scheduled hearing)
EDWARDS, JUNE Adjourned from 04/27/04
Work Session/Design Review
Major Subdivision/ 6 Lots
Location: Dougherty Lane & Tucker Mill Road
Tax Map/Lot #2/17
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Terry O’Connor and Bob and June Edwards. No abutters were present.
Terry O’Connor of Granite State Survey represented the applicant. Mr. O’Connor
submitted revised plans to the Board and wished to review changes made to the plans since the
last meeting.
EDWARDS, JUNE, cont.
Mr. O’Connor stated that Lots #2/17-5 and 2/17-2 were reconfigured to accommodate the location of an exact 50’ strip to allow for adequate driveway access to the lots and proper sight distance where the driveways met the roadway.
Mr. O’Connor stated that a review to address the concerns of the Conservation Committee was performed by Rich Bond of Merrimack Soil Consultants. He added that he had not yet received comments back from the Conservation Committee regarding that review.
Mr. O’Connor stated that the seal for the soil scientist was not yet on the plans, however, pursuant to the plan’s acceptance, that item would be completed.
Mr. O’Connor noted that the actual acreage breakdowns for wetlands on each lot were added to the plans as well as the square footage measurements.
Mr. O’Connor said that the Road Agent had approved the location for the preliminary culvert design under Dougherty Lane. He noted that this location was shown to Board members on the site walk of April 17, 2004. Mr. O’Connor said this location had natural contours that allowed drainage flow on either side of the road in opposing directions. He added that the proposed 15 inch culvert would be set with proper pitches and cover. He thought that the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, watershed outlines and drainage calculations were not applicable as this was an existing road where any seasonal water pooling would naturally drain to the road’s opposite side.
Mr. O’Connor pointed out that Note #2 on the Standard Planning Board Notes was now Note #9 on the plans.
With that summary, Mr. O’Connor asked for the Board’s acceptance of the preliminary application.
The Chairman asked if the Board had any questions. James Nordstrom wanted to clarify that the culvert for Dougherty Lane was recommended by the Road Agent. Mr. O’Connor said that the Road Agent approved that culvert location should it be necessary. He added that this location was determined on a site walk with Les Mills and Road Agent, John Riendeau.
The Chairman asked if the Coordinator had any questions. The Coordinator asked what thoughts were given to improvements to the intersection of Dougherty Lane and Tucker Mill Road. Terry O’Connor replied that he had a formula from the Coordinator that outlined the necessary issues for such improvement. The Chairman asked what the improvements were. Terry O’Connor replied that a knoll in the location of the intersection required grading based on the formula and this issue was also clarified on the April 17, 2004, site walk with Board members. The Chairman added that there were some large pine trees near the intersection that would probably needed to be cut down. Terry O’Connor stated that the tree removal had not been
discussed and thought that if the road was leveled down there might not be a need. The Chairman thought there was a note that said removing the two big pine trees might additionally help the improvements to the intersection.
Bob Edwards stated that he did not yet have an itemized bill for the improvements. Terry O’Connor said that he could provide this to his client.
The Chairman asked if the 15 inch culvert was part of the applicant’s subdivision plan.
Terry O’Connor said that he could add a note to the plans that detailed the culvert if the Road
EDWARDS, JUNE, cont.
Agent felt it was necessary and the Town would be notified and present at installation of the culvert. He added that proper soil and erosion control would be handled during installation. The Chairman asked if the applicant would be responsible for installing the culvert. Terry O’Connor replied that he would need to discuss that topic with his client. The Chairman then asked if the applicant was willing to remove the two large pine trees in question and do proper road grading of that area. Bob Edwards agreed to this.
The Chairman asked if the Road Agent would have an issue with who installed the culverts, be it the Town or the applicant. The Coordinator replied that she had not spoken with the Road Agent regarding this issue. Terry O’Connor noted that he was also interested to know the Road Agent’s opinion on the culvert installation.
Christine Quirk MOVED to conditionally approve the concept of the preliminary plan for June Edwards, Major Subdivision/6 Lots, Location: Dougherty Lane and Tucker Mill Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/17 and to inform the applicant to submit a completed application pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations. It is hereby pointed out that the “conditional approval of a preliminary plan shall be valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of such conditional approval, at which time it shall become null and void, unless the condition has been performed or met, or unless extended in writing by the Board.”
(Subdivision Regulations, Section IV-E, 9.) James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Terry O’Connor confirmed with the Board that he was now required to submit a new application for final approval. The Chairman stated that this was the case.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
9. The Chairman said input was needed from the Board regarding action on this memo but felt that the Town Administrator’s suggestion did not interfere with what the Board currently expected from its Town engineer. Amy Alexander stated that although it was easier to complete engineering reviews of plans with all information in hand, it would not affect her thoroughness if she did not have the Road Committee’s comments, but might lengthen the review’s completion time frame and cost. James Nordstrom thought an adequate response to the Town Administrator’s letter was Amy Alexander’s statement, in that up front information was preferred but not necessary and that the plan review could, therefore, require more time and become more costly if such information
was not provided in a timely manner. He added that Town engineer was entitled to know if they would meet or hear from the Road Committee before
or after they received plans for review. The Chairman added that the potential for double reviews might be unfair to an applicant.
Brandy Mitroff stated that she had not read the Town Administrator’s letter, but felt
that Brian Dorwart of the Road Committee had requested a review of the Vista Road plan by
Dufresne-Henry, Inc. during preliminary because the Road Committee did not have all the
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
information necessary for its own review. Amy Alexander thought it would be advantageous for a Town engineer to attend the Road Committee meetings so that everyone was on the same page with road issues. The Chairman stated that the Planning Board had their own issues with this road plan as did the Road Committee, yet the Board was not being made privy to the Road Committee’s opinion. Amy Alexander thought that preliminary conceptual comments from the Road Committee would be just as helpful if the committee did not feel comfortable releasing a professional opinion. Brandy Mitroff agreed and added that the Road Committee thought that as volunteers, they bore some liability if they made professional engineering comments on a plan. She stated that all the information needed for the review was not
in their possession.
The Chairman asked why the Road Committee could not address their concerns with road plans in a letter to the Board who could then validate or invalidate those concerns. He added that he thought the Road Committee was acting in a somewhat secretive manner regarding their comments on the Vista Road plan. Brandy Mitroff stated that there were two issues of conflict that the Road Committee had. She explained that the first issue dealt with their liability of providing professional opinions in a volunteer environment and that had been addressed while the second issue of having a set of final plans to review was pending their ability to meet and discuss such plans. Brandy Mitroff felt certain that the Road Committee would welcome the Town engineer to their
meetings and as a result both entities would have synchronized information. Amy Alexander stated that she needed to know when the meetings were in order to request being present at them and that she thought these meetings were open to the public and generated minutes. Christine Quirk confirmed that Road Committee meetings were open to the public and did have minutes as well. The Coordinator wished to clarify that the Road Committee did have the plans but not other coinciding reports as they were not usually sent to the Road Committee and had not been requested. She added that the Committee’s request for the Drainage Report on Vista Road had since been fulfilled. The Chairman asked where the Road Committee’s results were and asked why the Board never received copies of Road Committee minutes. Brandy Mitroff reiterated that the Road Committee had probably not yet met and that the Planning Board had not been clear in their request for a
review completion date by the Road Committee at the last meeting. The Coordinator noted that plans always contained a note that requested review at the recipient’s earliest convenience.
Christine Quirk thought it might be beneficial if a Planning Board member sat on the Road Committee meetings, especially since the Road Committee only met a few times each year. James Nordstrom stated that he was willing to attend Road Committee meetings and would recommend that a letter to Burton Reynolds suggest that the Road Agent, Road Committee members and the Town engineer meet prior to the plan review for this application. The Chairman agreed and stated that in this way all plan issues would be addressed. Amy Alexander asked when the final plans for Vista Road were expected. The Coordinator replied that the final plans would be ready after the application was accepted as complete and that the next scheduled Planning Board hearing for this
applicant was June 8, 2004. Bob Furey added that he was also willing to attend Road Committee meetings if his schedule permitted.
PEDZIK, CHRISTINE Adjourned from 04/27/04
Submission of Application/NRSPR/Kennel
Location: 762 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/20
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Andrzej and Christine Pedzik. No abutters were present. Interested parties were Amy Alexander and Jay Marden.
Ray Shea of Sandford Survey represented the applicant. Ray Shea submitted site plans to the Board and stated that the site was a three acre parcel on the south side of Route 13 whose easterly boundary abutted the Goffstown, NH, town line. He added that the Piscataquog River was within 70 feet of Route 13 in that area.
Ray Shea stated that the applicant proposed construction of a dog kennel, office and grooming area with a one-car garage included in a 900 square foot building with an attached 400 square foot kennel area that would include 13 runs for dogs. He noted that the applicant had obtained special exception from the Zoning Board to allow the use which was granted. Ray Shea said that the existing well on the property would be used along with a proposed new septic system still in the planning stage that would service both the new building and the existing residence. He added that the Department of Transportation still needed to be contacted regarding the driveway permit. Ray Shea noted that this plan was nearly complete and the Coordinator’s checklist
items had been addressed.
The Chairman asked for a brief overview of the kennel proposals. Christine Pedzik replied that the dog kennels would be used for overnight stays and grooming between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. The Chairman said his main concern was dogs located outside on the property and asked how the applicant proposed to quell the noise from the outside dogs. Christine Pedzik replied that noise would be suppressed by landscape screening and that the
proposed building’s shape along with placement of the property acted as a sound funnel. She added that the only neighbors close enough to hear any barking were directly across the street and that the existing building was located at the front of the property at a higher level than the location where the dogs would be kept which lowered the noise potential as sound traveled downward and not upward. The Chairman disagreed with this statement and thought the opposite effect was possible as well. Christine Pedzik replied that she had researched public records for sound barriers and this configuration with buildings located in the front of the
property, sound generated from the back and landscape screening encompassing the area to suppress noise was the optimum.
Ray Shea pointed out where the front of the proposed building was on the plans and noted where the grooming area, kennels and runs would be located. He noted that the front of
the kennel building would be walled, the back half would be open and the runs would be under a roof overhang. He added that the property rose 20 feet from the front where it met Route 13, plateaued, and rose to the back where it abutted Fales Lane. Ray Shea also stated that the proposed building was 100 feet in elevation. He noted that a series of swales and drains were proposed to catch a substantial amount of surface runoff that ran across Fales Lane and onto the
PEDZIK, CHRISTINE, cont.
property. Ray Shea said that a swale behind the proposed building would catch runoff and carry it through a drain to another swale and finally to a culvert that ran under Route 13. Ray Shea said that the property would be graded at 3:1 so that Fales Lane was 10-12 feet higher than the lot and thus provided some buffer to the potential barking which would not travel out at ground level for at some distance. He added that abutters to the east and west of the kennel area were set back quite a distance and not directly behind the kennel area either.
Andrzej Pedzik pointed out that the overhang attached to the garage was a roof over the kennel area and, therefore, the outside kennel area could be considered somewhat enclosed. The Chairman asked if this overhang could cause an echo effect when dogs barked. Christine Pedzik replied that she felt proper landscape screening and sound proof insulation inside the overhang would repress the barking noise. The Chairman reiterated that outside barking was his only area of concern and that the site plan was an exceptionally good design for a home business but wanted to ensure that enforcement of the noise suppression was guaranteed without holding the applicant to an unreasonable standard of compliance. Christine Pedzik noted that the State’s decibel level
for Route 13 was 84 decibels for trucks and that a gas powered lawn mower reached a level of 64 decibels. She added that listening to a mower for any period of time would be tedious, however, it still did not exceed the maximum decibels allowed for that area. The Chairman said this was a good point. Andrzej Pedzik said that the dogs would only be allowed outside at certain hours of the day. Christopher Johnson asked if the dogs would be inside all night and Andrzej Pedzik said they were. Ray Shea showed the area of the plan where the kennels were divided between the inside of the building and the outside overhang. The Chairman said that a note should be included on the plans that listed the latest reasonable hour the dogs would be outside and suggested 7:30 p.m. Andrzej and Christine Pedzik thought 7:30 p.m. was agreeable.
The Chairman then asked what the applicant felt was a workable solution for the barking dog issue. Andrzej Pedzik offered that the barking dog would be let out only by himself. Amy Alexander noted that the Town of Raymond, NH stipulated that barking dogs were allowed outside for only 15 minutes at a time. The Chairman thought this was a reasonable note for the plans as well and asked the applicant what the earliest outside time would then be. Christine Pedzik replied 7:00 a.m. Bob Furey asked if these times were the same for the weekends as well. The Chairman said that would require the applicant’s discretion on the weekends. Andrzej Pedzik replied that certain issues such as this would need to be addressed as they arose.
The
Chairman replied that the Board was trying to protect the rights of surrounding neighbors while allowing the applicant their right to a home business. Andrzej Pedzik also noted that the business would be by appointment only which would keep traffic to a minimum and allow planning for pick up and drop off.
The Chairman asked what the maximum number of dogs at the kennel would be and Andrzej Pedzik said the maximum number was 13 dogs. Brandy Mitroff stated that not using metal roofing on the overhang would suppress barking noise and referenced a kennel that had a similar problem. The Pedziks noted that the roof was proposed to be asphalt shingles with wood rafters and insulation. The Chairman stated that a note should be added to the plans stating that
PEDZIK, CHRISTINE, cont.
sound absorbing roofing material was a requirement for the overhang. Ray Shea offered
that a stockade fence located between the back of the garage and its swale would absorb
noise. Andrzej Pedzik noted that the kennels were double enclosed for sound and safety. Christine Pedzik thought that the stockade fence could be placed on the short side of the property at the furthest corner to block barking sound from the closest neighbors. Ray Shea said the fence could also be placed closer to the open area of the site. The Chairman stated that the applicant’s effort to surpress the noise was a worthwhile cause. Jay Marden thought that acoustic ceiling tile placed in the overhang would quiet barking noise and the Chairman agreed and added that this material was also relatively inexpensive.
The Chairman thought these ideas would satisfy the ZBA requirements as well. Andrzej Pedzik said he had done much research on this project to.
Bob Furey asked what the State required for dog waste disposal. Christine Pedzik replied that a dumpster was required and that she had already contacted a dumpster service that would empty the dumpster two times each month. The Chairman said that the dumpster location and
disposal schedule needed to be added to the site plan. James Nordstrom asked what the requirements were for vehicles that serviced the dumpster. Ray Shea stated he would address that issue. The Chairman summarized that the dumpster’s proposed location and waste removal should be planned in such a way that odors were kept to a minimum.
James Nordstrom asked if floor drains were proposed on the plans. Christine Pedzik replied that the drains were part of the septic design. Ray Shea added that the septic design for the plans would be calculated to handle floor drains.
The Chairman asked what the plan proposed for lighting of the kennel and grooming area. Ray Shea stated that the lighting was located in the soffits and was proposed to be downcast wall mounted sconces that were not bright. He added that no light post or lights attached to the outside of the garage were proposed.
The Chairman asked what the hours of operation would be for the business. Christine Pedzik replied that hours of operation would be 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. seven days a week. Andrzej Pedzik added that there would be driveway lighting operated by a time clock dependent on the seasons where dusk came earlier in the day. The Chairman asked what the pick up times for dogs would be and Christine Pedzik said that pick up times would end at 5:30 p.m. unless there was an emergency that extended that time. The Chairman thought that the applicant should
extend the hours of operation on the plans to insure a buffer. Christine Pedzik then requested
hours of operation of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
The Chairman thought a site walk was necessary to view the parking refinements and dumpster location. Ray Shea noted that the parking area would be four delineated parking spaces on a paved area and a garage space. Christine Pedzik noted that a sign would be installed
that told clients not to back out of the driveway onto Route 13. The Chairman agreed that it was important to have proper traffic instruction for the kennel clients.
Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., asked if there was a proposed under-drain between the house and the kennel. Ray Shea replied that enclosed drainage would carry sheet flow run off from a swale located within a structure behind the existing building. Amy
PEDZIK, CHRISTINE, cont.
Alexander asked if Ray Shea planned to educate the applicant on the maintenance of the enclosed drainage system as they became easily clogged and Ray Shea said he would do so.
A site walk was scheduled for June 1, 2004, at 6:30 p.m.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application for Christine Pedzik, Submission of Application/NRSPR/Kennel, Location: 762 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/20, “R-A” District, as complete. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application for Christine Pedzik, Submission of Application/NRSPR/Kennel, Location: 762 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/20, “R-A” District, to June 22, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
INDIAN FALLS, LLC Adjourned from 04/27/04
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/14 Lots
Location: Bedford, McCurdy & Campbell Pond Roads
Tax Map/Lot #12/89
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ray Shea, Dean Glow and Dana Lorden. An abutter present was Don Duhaime. Interested parties were Jay Marden and Amy Alexander.
Ray Shea stated that he had received Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s plan review on May 24, 2004, which dealt with construction detail issues not subject to lot layout or road design. He stated, therefore, that he would ask for a hearing continuance so that he could make necessary updates to the plans based on those findings.
Ray Shea stated that the Road Agent thought culvert work or replacement was necessary in the area of Bedford Road approximately ½ mile from Klondike Korner. Ray Shea said the applicant was prepared to make some degree of monetary contribution toward the culvert
improvement. The Chairman asked how the monetary contribution process was handled. Ray Shea replied that a cash donation was possible. The Chairman asked if payment in the form of
roadwork was a possibility. Ray Shea said the applicant would not perform such construction one mile from the subdivision site but was willing to contribute monetarily if a cash method was possible and according to the subdivision’s development impacts.
Amy Alexander asked if the applicant would secure wetlands permits. Ray Shea said that
the applicant would not be doing construction in that location and would not, therefore, be responsible for such permits. The Chairman asked if the Town would then need permits to do culvert work in that location and Amy Alexander replied that the Town should do so.
Ray Shea stated that the Fiscal Impact Study was based on homes sold for $350,000 each in the proposed subdivision and that each home generated a negative tax effect of $416. He
INDIAN FALLS, LLC, cont.
added that this was not a big subdivision, therefore, the applicant would either self phase the
project or pay the impact fees if six to eight lots were completed early through year end. The
Chairman wondered who would receive such a cash payment.
Ray Shea asked if the applicant was permitted to start clearing trees on the subdivision property. The Chairman replied that the Board could not prevent the applicant from clearing trees on property that he owned. Amy Alexander commented that if tree cutting impacted more than one acre of the property, the owner needed authorization from the Environmental Protection Association (EPA). The Coordinator pointed out that the Subdivision Regulations prohibited earth disturbance prior to approval, therefore, grubbing could not take place, but tree cutting was not ordinarily an issue.
The Chairman asked if any abutters were present. Don Duhaime said he was concerned with the sight distance where the proposed roadway met Bedford Road as it was on a downhill grade on Bedford Road. Ray Shea replied that the Traffic Study had deemed the sight distance at this location as more than adequate. Amy Alexander noted that AASHTO had stringent requirements regarding roads with downhill grades. Ray Shea said that all outstanding items on the plans should be ready by the next scheduled hearing date.
James Nordstrom asked how the erosion control study addressed future impacts of subsequent construction of lots. Ray Shea replied that additional erosion control was required in the SWPPP Plan. Amy Alexander pointed out that EPA monitored impacts of more than one acre. James Nordstrom added there were several issues with how the SWPPP Plan addressed subdivisions whose final construction plan was unknown at the time of the road construction for the subdivision.
Jay Marden asked if the net negative loss to the Town regarding the Fiscal Impact Study was felt every year or only the first year of the subdivision’s completion. Ray Shea replied that this was a yearly effect, however, changing tax rates made potential for future losses somewhat vague. Jay Marden noted that economic recession could cause greater negative impacts. He added that a donation of usable land to the Town might be of more benefit than a one time monetary contribution. Ray Shea stated that as the three abutting land owners were working well together regarding road connections between their subdivisions he believed that they would be willing to discuss options of land donation during future phases of their projects. The Chairman
agreed that a donation of usable land was a more beneficial asset to the Town than a one time monetary payment.
The Chairman asked what driveways were planned for the subdivision. Ray Shea replied
that single driveways and two common driveways were planned and would be shown on the plans with his completion of all necessary updates.
He added that a sign on Bedford Road that announced the upcoming intersection at the
development entrance was proposed and that a note on the plans would state that no further subdivisions would be considered until an additional access road was gained in the development.
The Chairman asked if the school bus stop had been decided. Ray Shea replied he had forgotten to discuss that item with the Road Agent. He added that creating an area for the bus to
pull off Bedford Road was dependent on its ability to be plowed properly and that he would
INDIAN FALLS, LLC, cont.
contact the Road Agent on that matter.
The Chairman asked if the applicant would consider conservation easements for Lot #12/89-14 as for the other frontage lots on Bedford Road. Ray Shea replied such an easement would be added.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn Indian Falls, LLC, Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/14 Lots, Location: Bedford, McCurdy & Campbell Pond Roads, Tax
Map/Lot #12/89, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to June 22, 2004, at 7:30 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
This will be an informational session with Jeff Palmer to discuss a potential cluster subdivision on Tucker Mill Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/15.
The Chairman reads the public hearing notice and noted that this informational session had been cancelled by request of the applicant.
This will be an information session with Vista Road, LLC, to discuss a potential subdivision on Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/33 & 6/40-2.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present for Vista Road, LLC, were Brian Holt and Eric Mitchell, LLS.
Eric Mitchell, LLS, submitted plans to the Board that illustrated two different parcels on the eastern and western sides of Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/33 and 6/40-2. He added that considerations were being made for either an open space development or grid type subdivision. Eric Mitchell, LLS, stated that Vista Road, LLC, was before the Board in the fall of 2003 to request a lot line adjustment after purchasing 35 acres from Tax Map/Lot #6/35 on Route 13. He noted that this acreage combined with land on the old Byam house lot permitted Lot #6/40-2 to be combined with the land formerly owned by the Dodds family (Lot #6/33) totaling 198 acres. He added that Wilson Hill Road cut through the middle of these parcels. Mr. Mitchell, LLS,
stated that a 50’ access toward Hutchinson Road was deemed unusable due to steepness, therefore, the concept for the potential subdivision’s roadway was to begin off Route 13 near the existing farm house, travel up through Lot #6/40-2, cross Wilson Hill Road and
eventually connect with the access left at the end of Swanson Road in the Highland Hills subdivision.
Eric Mitchell, LLS, stated that the density allowed for this open space concept was calculated at a maximum of 77 house lots and Vista Road, LLC, proposed 50 lots on their conceptual open space development plan. Mr. Mitchell, LLS, explained that the open space requirement needed to equal 25% of the total acreage which was just under 50 acres and the area proposed was the majority of Lot #6/33 along with the open meadow that ran along Route 13.
He noted that this land totaled 111 acres or 56% of the total site. Mr. Mitchell, LLS, further
added that 40% of the 25% portion of open space must be upland which was clearly the case.
VISTA ROAD, LLC, cont.
Eric Mitchell, LLS, stated that a grid type subdivision was also considered and an access to Route 13 was sought through the Dodds land from Wilson Hill Road. Mr. Mitchell, LLS,
wanted the Board’s input on the studies that would be required for this concept. He noted that there were road design constraints in this grid concept because the proposed development would be located on the side of a hill in contrast to the other developments in this area that were located on the top of the hill. Mr. Mitchell, LLS, pointed out proposed grade lines on the grid type concept and stated that the roadway would follow the slope of the hill down to Route 13 except where a drainage way crossed through Lot #6/33. He noted that the existing site grades were between 10 and 20% and averaged 15-16%. Mr. Mitchell, LLS, said the proposed road grade was not over 8% for the entire roadway and avoided large cuts and fills to the land. Mr. Mitchell, LLS, stated that there was a
discrepancy with the intersection designed at Route 13 where the road sloped upward at a 3% grade rather than the Town’s required 3% negative grade. He added that changing the slope to a negative 3% would cause subsequent cuts in the roadway to reach depths of 20-30 feet.
Mr. Mitchell, LLS, stated that wetlands impacts were just over 10,000 square feet and, therefore, required wetland mitigation which would be considered at the plan’s final stage.
Mr. Mitchell, LLS, stated that he also had plans for the grid type subdivision that used the same proposed roadway configuration and the road was not altered more than 50’ on either side. He added that there were 14 lots proposed on the easterly side of Wilson Hill Road with a large remaining tract of land that would have access to the Class V portion of Wilson Hill Road and 22 lots proposed on the westerly side of Wilson Hill Road that would have access to the main portion of Wilson Hill Road. Mr. Mitchell, LLS, said that the farmhouse on the parcel site would be preserved with 50’ setbacks on the surrounding lots which would be minimum two acre lots with 200 X 200 squares. He noted that the subdivision’s proposed road was 4,900 feet in
length. Mr. Mitchell, LLS, stated that the open space development concept had lots between 1.4 and 1.5 acres, sized 53,000-62,000 square feet and a minimum 150 feet wide for individual wells and septic systems as required by the State for individual stand alone lots. Mr. Mitchell, LLS, said that the grid type concept lots were at least 2 acres and 200 feet in lot width.
Mr. Mitchell, LLS, discussed a final concept “B” that was completed as an aside to the previous plans where a road 2,200 feet in length accessed the road proposed on the prior plans
and connected with Wilson Hill Road and Route 13. He noted that this road was a difficult design as a main water course that traveled through the property was at an elevation of 410 feet while the water surface was 370 feet. Mr. Mitchell, LLS, stated that a steep ravine was formed as a result and would need to be bridged. He added that very steep cuts were necessary to meet required grades and long fills would approach 30 feet in depth. Mr. Mitchell, LLS, stated that while a lot of cutting was not needed a good deal of filling was required to maintain the slopes and curve radii on this concept as the height of the property on the southern side of the hill was much higher than Wilson Hill Road. He reiterated that this concept was merely shown to the
Board as it was another access potential to Wilson Hill Road. He stated that the Wilson Hill/
River Road intersection would require reconfiguration from a “Y” to a “T”.
Mr. Mitchell, LLS, stated that this final concept yielded 50 units but 70 would be applied
VISTA ROAD, LLC, cont.
for in order that the cost factor for the necessary road construction was absorbed. He added
that the grid type concept would yield 36 units and the first concept presented would yield 50 cluster lots. He then asked for the Board’s discussion.
An interested party, Jay Marden questioned gray shaded areas on the Locus plan that did not coincide with blacked in areas on the main set of plans. Mr. Mitchell, LLS, stated that certain areas of the Locus plan were incorrect in that they only showed partial areas of the site property and had been used on a prior subdivision plan.
The Chairman asked if there were any additional comments. James Nordstrom asked if the open space concept was considered a cluster development and Mr. Mitchell, LLS, replied that it was. James Nordstrom added that Zoning regulations for cluster developments required 100 foot buffers to the parent perimeter of the property. Mr. Mitchell, LLS, replied that these perimeter buffers would be maintained. James Nordstrom then asked if such setbacks would prohibit the building envelope on other lots. Mr. Mitchell, LLS, said that most lots were 300 to 400 feet in depth but recognized James Nordstrom’s point as a valid one and noted that septic and driveway accesses would need considerations as well.
James Nordstrom stated that the applicant would require waivers where the entrance to the proposed road met Route 13 as it deviated from Town requirements. Eric Mitchell, LLS, confirmed that he would request a waiver, noting that a 3% negative grade 75’ from the intersection to the vertical curve would require significant cuts into the hill. He noted that a 3% grade would be acceptable per AASHTO and NHDOT and would still allow a flat area for stacking three or more cars.
Jay Marden asked if the open space areas would be prohibited from future development. Mr. Mitchell, LLS, replied that the related ordinance allowed for private ownership but had provisions for public accesses and passive recreation, walking trails and conservation easements. He added that the ordinance that dealt with cluster development precluded the land from future subdivision.
The Chairman asked if the open space left was simply land that could not be developed anyway. Eric Mitchell, LLS, stated that 40% of the open space had to be buildable. He noted that the first concept presented allowed a large block of land to remain undisturbed as opposed to
some plans which left strips of land behind all the lots which remained largely unusable for other
recreation or wildlife.
The Chairman thought it would be interesting to get the Road Agent’s opinion on this road proposal as it appeared to be a difficult design. Mr. Mitchell, LLS, said he could speak with the Road Agent.
The Coordinator said that the Board should consider input from the Police and Fire Departments, Road Agent and Road Committee early on regarding safety issues for this design as there were similar issues with previous projects built on Wilson Hill. She added that such input would offer insight into which proposal seemed a better choice.
Jay Marden again voiced his concern over maintaining the open areas along Route 13
such as the Byam field and its former corn field. Mr. Mitchell, LLS, replied that this was
dependent on ownership of these areas and Brian Holt replied that Vista Road, LLC, maintained
VISTA ROAD, LLC, cont.
this ownership.
Mr. Mitchell, LLS, asked if meetings should be arranged with Town entities regarding their input on the concepts presented tonight. The Chairman wanted hear comments back from the Town agencies before proceeding.
Brian Holt asked what types of studies the Board would require should the plans proceed. The Chairman responded that Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental studies would be required. The Coordinator added that a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would also be warranted.
The Chairman stated that the Board would forward Vista Road, LLC’s concept proposals to the appropriate Town agencies for their comments.
CITAK, KRISTI
Compliance Hearing
NRSPR/Beauty Salon Home Business
Location: 45 Woodbury Road
Tax Map/Lot #2/47
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Kristi Citak.
The Chairman stated that the recent site walk at the applicant’s home business appeared to meet compliance requirements. He asked if the Board had any comments and there were none.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm that Kristi Citak, has complied with the Conditions Subsequent to the approval of the site plan to operate a beauty salon home business from property located at 45 Woodbury Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/47, and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
10. A memorandum dated May 13, 2004, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Planning, Zoning, Growth Action Group Members, Re: Master Planning Information, was distributed for the Board’s information.
11. A copy of information from the OEP Spring Conference, May 8, 2004, Model Ordinances from the Rockingham Planning Commission: Model ordinance for a Village Plan, Alternative Subdivision: Model ordinance for a Hamlet Alternative Minor Subdivision/Infill Development, Model Ordinance for a Conservation Zone, was distributed for the Board’s Information.
12. A copy of a Planning magazine article of June, 2004, Re: Refusal to Grant Cell Tower Variance Violates Law, was distributed for the Board’s information.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
13. Driveway Permit Applications for R.J Moreau Communities, LLC, Wilson Hill Road,
Tax Map/Lot #6/32-3, 6/32-18, 6/32-20, for proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.
(Drive By Prior to Meeting)
The Chairman stated that this item mirrored Miscellaneous Business item #4, and the Board should wait for the Road Agent’s comments along with clearer markings for all the driveway locations before approval of these Driveway Permit Applications.
14. Signatures required for the site review agreement of James Dodge, Dodge Farms Ice Cream and Garden Stand, for the Board’s action.
The Chairman signed the site review agreement.
15. A copy of a fax received May 20, 2004, from Eric Farris, CVI Development, Inc, to Planning Department, Re: Extension of Deadline for Conditions Subsequent, was distributed for the Board’s action.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant a final extension request for Eric Farris, CVI Development, Inc., as listed in his letter dated May 19, 2004. Christopher Johnson seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
16. A copy of an email received May 12, 2004, from Leah Riseman, to Planning Board, Re: George Merrill’s Whipplewill Road Self Storage, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Chairman asked if this email should be released to the Zoning Board for their information. The Coordinator replied that this situation was more of a Planning Board issue as they were more familiar with this site plan. The Chairman thought that someone from the Board should drive by the area to see if the landscaping on the berm was being properly nurtured and said he would drive by the site. If not, he added that this would become a compliance issue of the site plan. The Chairman also thought that a copy of this email should be sent to George Merrill and an explanation requested by the Board. He asked the Board if they felt a site walk was also necessary. James Nordstrom replied that he would drive by the area and have a
comment for the next Planning Board meeting. The Chairman stated that a decision for a site walk would be determined at the next meeting, as would a response from Mrs. Riseman.
17. A letter dated May 18, 2004, from Bill Drescher, Esq., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Lot of Record Question-South Hill Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that the Board could approve to release Bill Drescher, Esq.’s letter or a summarized version to the applicant. She also noted that the Board could request
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
proof to confirm Town Counsel’s assumptions whether it be a certified letter from the applicant’s attorney stating a title search was done or certification from a Licensed Land Surveyor. The Chairman offered that they could supply Town Counsel’s conclusions to the applicant in that the land in question appeared to be two separate lots based on the applicant’s provided information.
James Nordstrom asked if it was more appropriate for the Town to request certification of the two lots by a Licensed Land Surveyor, or possibly have all the information submitted to the Planning Board for their determination. He noted that made the Town liable in some regard for the determination. The Chairman thought that the applicant should be asked to prove his case. Christine Quirk agreed. James Nordstrom thought the Board should send Town Counsel’s summarized conclusions to the applicant and request acceptable certification in the form of a plan or written description from a Licensed Land Surveyor. The Chairman agreed.
18. A copy of a memorandum dated May 24, 2004, to the Board from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Master Plan Update, Steering Committee, etc., was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that she received an email from the Master Plan Committee that stated they would be reviewing the Master Plan in total and wanted to begin writing the Future Land Use chapter. As their next meeting was on June 2, 2004, the Coordinator stated she was concerned about this decision as the Future Land Use chapter was usually written after other chapters were completed as it pulled information from these prior chapters. She added that it was the group’s feeling that they could add to others chapters as they went through the Future Land Use Chapter update.
The Coordinator suggested to the Board that the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC) be asked to work on the rest of the Master Plan so that this group then had something to work from. She added that a Steering Committee for the group might be unnecessary if this was to remain one large group anyway. James Nordstrom asked how large the group was and the Coordinator replied that it was between 25-30 people. James Nordstrom agreed that it was pointless to address Future Land Use first as other sections were the underlying basis for this chapter. He thought the committee should be informed of this fact.
Bob Furey asked if funds were available for the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission to work on other chapters. The Coordinator replied that the SNHPC agreed to do the work on the other chapters with the funds the Town had available. She thought perhaps that the Committee could compile a bulleted list of items for the Future Land Use chapter but should
avoid formally writing it yet as it could be a wasted effort. James Nordstrom thought the Committee needed better explanation on this topic. The Coordinator stated that the next Steering Committee meeting was scheduled for June 2, 2004. The Chairman thought that it was important to notify the Committee that while their work was appreciated it was necessary to perform certain steps in the compilation of the Master Plan in sequence otherwise the work was unusable.
The Coordinator also noted that this Committee group was not representative of the entire
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
Town community and that these chapters might change once public hearings were held. James Nordstrom replied that this also needed to be clarified with the Committee and that he would try to attend the June 2, 2004, meeting.
19. A copy of a letter dated May 24, 2004, sent to Roger Noonan from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Planning Board meeting materials and deadline for site plan, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that Roger Noonan stated he wished to continue to be an alternate to the Planning Board, however, he still had not attended any meetings. Secondly, she
added that he had not provided his site plan changes to the Planning Department so she had requested a written response from him.
The Chairman asked how many meetings an alternate was allowed to miss before their assignment expired. The Coordinator replied that an alternate’s schedule was less rigid than the regular members but they were required to attend some meetings in order to stay current on Planning Board topics should they be required to fill in at a meeting. James Nordstrom said the Planning Board could refer this situation to the Board of Selectmen or wait to hear Mr. Noonan’s response to the Coordinator’s letter and discuss it at the next meeting. The Chairman asked if Planning Board information was still being copied to Mr. Noonan. The Coordinator replied that she was copying some information but not plans or lengthy reports. James Nordstrom
thought that Mr. Noonan should not be copied any more information until he supplied a response to the Board for the next meeting. The Board agreed.
20. Schedule a site inspection for Thomas and Christine Quirk’s toilet building, Friendly Beaver Campground, Tax Map/Lot #7/11, Cochran Hill Road.
The site walk was scheduled for June 1, 2004, at 6:00 p.m.
21. Distribution of calendar, June – Dec 2004.
The Coordinator explained that this calendar was a way for Board members to keep track of adjournments of hearings and meetings and so on.
22a. A copy of a fax received May 25, 2004, from Brian Holt, Vista Road, LLC, to the Board, Re: Hutchinson Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that Mr. Holt stated in his letter that he assumed the road plans for Vista Road, LLC, site plan were in order and nothing further needed to be addressed.
She noted in her response letter that his assumptions were inaccurate and more comments on the plan would be forthcoming.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
22b. A copy of a letter dated May 25, 2004, to Brian Holt, Vista Road, LLC, from Nicola
Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: response to Brian Holt, Vista Road, LLC’s fax of May 25, 2004, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that this item was item #22a’s response letter.
5. Discussion re: second draft of Driveway Regulations distributed at May 11, 2004 meeting. (No copies)
The Coordinator suggested that the Board discuss these regulations at the next meeting.
Before the meeting closed, Jay Marden asked to say a few words. He noted that the number of new subdivisions being proposed lately meant that there was potential for 400-500 houses to be built in town in the relatively near future. He suggested that the Town should try to acquire as much acreage as possible from the developers for future use.
The Chairman thanked Jay Marden for his comments.
At 11:25p.m., James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
Minutes Approved: 6/18/04
| 
