Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 04/26/05
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of 2004 Meetings

April 26, 2005

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan.  Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Travis Daniels; ex-officio Christine Quirk; and, alternates Don Duhaime and Douglas Hill.  Also present were Planning Coordinator Nicola Strong, Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.  
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, were Paul Carideo, PE, Dave Elliot, Mitch Larochelle, Roch Larochelle, Neil Smith, Larry Pothier, James and Claire Dodge, Ernie Thibeault, Brian Holt, Michael Boyle, G. Paul Koning, Ray Shea, Sara Hogan and George St. John.

HARVEY DUPUIS FAMILY TRUST      Adjourned from 2/22/05
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/6 Lots
Location: Carriage Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/93 & 12/93-22
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Neil Smith, Dave Elliot, Mitch Larochelle and Larry Pothier.  Also present was Paul Carideo, PE, who represented the applicant.
        Paul Carideo, PE, stated that at the previous meeting with the Board an extension to the proposed cul-de-sac’s 1,000 foot length was discussed and now reflected on the plan.  He noted that the Board had preferred that the road extended beyond the boundaries of the proposed lots with a temporary cul-de-sac rather than end at a half way point between the lots.  Paul Carideo, PE, added that an outstanding issue was the location of the future right-of-way to Tax Map/Lot #12/96 over Tax Map/Lot #12/93-34 in consideration of the wetlands on Lot #34 and the proposed road’s length.  He noted that Mitch Larochelle and Neil Smith had secured a letter signed by both the Lorden and Dupuis families which stated their commitment to work together towards an acceptable right-of-way for future road connections.  This letter was then submitted to the Board and perused by the Chairman.  Paul Carideo, PE, added that because this letter dealt with a unique situation the language used was their first drafted attempt.  He further added that the plans now included a note which stated that no building permit would be granted on Lot #34 until the right-of-way location was finalized.  The Chairman pointed out that this note contained a three year deadline and did not think the applicant would want to wait that long to begin construction.  Paul Carideo, PE, replied that the applicant wanted the right-of-way location finalized as soon as possible and included the deadline with the note to insure that the Lordens would not drag their feet on this issue.
        The Chairman asked how significant the wetlands were in the location for the proposed road construction.  Paul Carideo, PE, noted a narrower area or break point in the wetlands on the plan which he said was the suggested location for the proposed road as there would be minimal water flow and less impact.  The Chairman asked if this optimum location was still considered plausible.  Paul Carideo, PE, replied that he had spoken with Dorothy Whitland of NH DES who thought the scenario shown given the Board’s preferences was an excellent idea for the road design.
        Paul Carideo, PE, asked if the Board had any comments regarding the Lorden/Dupuis
agreement letter concerning the right-of-way.  James Nordstrom replied that it was his first time reviewing such a letter, however, he did not see why it could not serve the proposed intent.  The Chairman noted that the pivotal point for this issue was that further subdivision would be restricted unless the road was constructed to connect with the Lorden property as the resulting dead end length for the proposed road would then be too long.  Paul Carideo, PE, noted that a road tie-in to the Bussiere property was the other option if the Lorden scenario failed.  Don Duhaime clarified that one of these two connection options would have to be successful in order for the proposed road length to be feasible.  James Nordstrom agreed.  From the audience, Ray Shea, LLS, of Sandford Surveying and Engineering also agreed and stated that his client was working toward that design in their neighboring subdivision plan.  James Nordstrom asked how long the applicant was willing to delay construction on Lot #34.  Neil Smith replied that they were willing to delay construction up to three years.  James Nordstrom asked what the case would be if at the end of three years no connection had been established.  Mitch Larochelle replied that if that became the case then the Lordens would be unable to subdivide their own properties because they would be without a road connection.  Dave Elliot agreed that this was the Lorden’s deal to lose if they delayed their agreement to a road connection.  James Nordstrom thought the drafted agreement was more than fair.  Paul Carideo, PE, added that the Lordens could certainly work with the applicant’s road design plan if they requested to do so within the three year period.  The Chairman thought that it was to the Lorden’s advantage that a road design be secured under this agreement.  
        The Chairman stated that although a waiver had been granted at the previous meeting for the cul-de-sac length of the proposed road by verbal request, a formal written request still need to be submitted to the Board.  Paul Carideo, PE, replied that he did not have the written request to submit tonight.  The Chairman asked if the plan review had been completed by the Town Engineer.  The Coordinator replied that it had not been and explained that a telephone conversation between herself and Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., outlined two issues.  She noted the first issue to be the grade of the proposed road where it would meet Carriage Road and secondly, sight distance at that location.  The Coordinator added that although a formal report was not completed, Amy Alexander had stated that if the application was nearing the approval phase she could address these items under conditional stipulations.
Paul Carideo, PE, asked for clarification regarding the Subdivision Regulation requirement for negative grading 75 feet from the centerline of a roadway.  He questioned whether the -3% maximum slope was a workable figure based on this site’s location on a large hill.  James Nordstrom replied that the Board’s interpretation of the Regulations had always been that the intersection of a new road should be -3% 75 feet from the centerline of the intersecting road.  He noted that although gradings would not ordinarily be compromised this applicant’s long standing history with this project could be considered.  Paul Carideo, PE, noted that the applicant made this request due to the grade of the site and the fact that the only means of access to it was approved in 1997 followed by subsequent road designs offered to satisfy the Board.  James Nordstrom asked if the applicant proposed widening the cut of the road to gain the positive 2% grade implied on the road design.  Paul Carideo, PE, replied that they employed the

2% positive grade based on their interpretation that -3% was the maximum grade allowed.  He added that using a -3% grade would put them lower into the hill and open the cut more, but could be done if it was a requirement.  Paul Carideo, PE, further added that the changes suggested in the Road Committee’s most recent letter concerning this plan could be considered once Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s review was completed and all outstanding items could then be addressed at once.  The Chairman asked Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, what impact a positive grade from a centerline would have on a roadway.  Roch Larochelle replied that generally grades were pitched away from the centerline of a roadway to accommodate drainage, however, a positive grade was acceptable as long as it did not exceed +3% in case of icing conditions.  The Chairman asked what the applicants desired for a grade from the centerline of the proposed road.  Paul Carideo, PE, replied that a 2% positive grade from the centerline was preferred for the proposed road design.  Roch Larochelle stated that if this grade was accompanied by a satisfactory platform, allowing it would be the Board’s discretion.  The Chairman asked if such a grade could be justified for safety.  Roch Larochelle replied that the design engineer would have to justify this proposal against the Subdivision Regulations.  The Chairman then asked if the grade requirement was waivable if the Town Engineer approved of it.  The Coordinator replied that it was.  James Nordstrom clarified that although waivable, the grade would need to be justified by a design engineer.  The Chairman suggested that such justification be included in a formal waiver request letter.  Christine Quirk asked how the sight distance would measure at the intersection of Carriage Road.  Paul Carideo, PE, replied that it was difficult to know at this point as he had not had a chance to review that item.  He added that adequate sight distance would most likely require a minor modification to Carriage Road at that intersection.
        The Chairman stated that a CUP Application was submitted February, 22, 2005.  He asked if the cost of wetland impact was included in the Town’s projected bond estimate.  Paul Carideo, PE, replied that it was.  The Chairman then asked if there were any changes to the Dredge and Fill area between the preliminary application submission and now.  Paul Carideo, PE, replied that there was not.  The Chairman noted that the last sign off by the Wetland Commission occurred in October, 2004, and asked if there were any additional changes to those impacts at this point. Paul Carideo, PE, replied that the impacts remained the same and were noted on the plan.  The Chairman stated that steep slopes would need to be clearly defined on the plan and that any construction to occur in slope areas of 15-25% would require a CUP Permit.  Paul Carideo, PE, asked if such areas should be noted by line work on the plan.  The Coordinator replied that shading or hatching the appropriate areas on the plan would suffice.  The Chairman noted his preference for colorized plans going forward.  Paul Carideo, PE, asked if this would include colorizing one map or all maps of the plan set.  The Chairman replied that colorizing one map would be acceptable.
The Chairman asked if the proposed driveways for Lot #’s 21 and 22 entered off a point in the roadway that did not exceed 8% as required by the Subdivision Regulations.  James Nordstrom noted that the driveway entrances in question appeared to be in the location of the proposed road’s vertical curve which seemed less than an 8% grade.  Paul Carideo, PE, confirmed this.  The Chairman asked about the requirement of the Certified Erosion and


Sediment Control Plan.  The Coordinator replied that the Board needed to decide if the road construction provided enough detail per what was required by Section V-V of the Regulations or if they thought more information was warranted for lot development.  James Nordstrom recalled that this requirement and how it should be applied to subdivision plans had been discussed previously where either identification of buildable areas or a narrative to address erosion control on lots should be submitted.  He asked Paul Carideo, PE, if he was aware of this issue.  Paul Carideo, PE, replied that he was.  James Nordstrom explained that if definable building pockets could not be predicted the requirements of Section V-V needed to be satisfied by the provision of some detailed information as to how construction would occur based on existing critical areas of erosion concern.  Paul Carideo, PE, replied that he could provide a narrative with the plan of the construction sequence along with recommendations for siltation.  James Nordstrom suggested that some generic detail could be crafted with a graphic to accompany the narrative.  Paul Carideo, PE, agreed.  The Coordinator noted that the Subdivision Regulations pointed out critical areas and discussed appropriate distances from poorly drained soils for construction, for example.  Dave Elliot commented that the site had fairly mellow grades.
The Chairman offered a colorizing key for the plans as suggested at a course given by the Office of State Planning which he and the Planning Assistant attended: wetlands-blue, steep slopes-purple, roads and drives-orange, open space and trees-green, lot lines-yellow, building envelopes-pink.  Douglas Hill asked how the slope ranges would be differentiated by color.  Paul Carideo, PE, suggested that a darker shade of purple could be used for more severe slopes.  
The Chairman noted that the language for the Declaration of Covenants regarding fire sprinklers was still being reviewed by Town Counsel.  Regarding the Fiscal Impact Study, the Chairman asked the proposed cost of the homes to be built in the subdivision and the number of bedrooms.  Mitch Larochelle replied that the cost of a home would be in the range of $400- $475K with three or four bedrooms.  The Chairman added that he thought it interesting that such proposed subdivisions never predicted a traffic impact.  He asked if the applicant would be responsible for the planned culvert replacement on Bedford Road.  The Coordinator noted that the culvert replacement on Bedford Road was a Town project.  She further noted that the cost of the project and the fair share assessed to the developer for offsite road improvements had been calculated, as done with the Indian Falls’ applicant.  James Nordstrom noted that the fair share formula for the applicant yielded a fee of $760.00.  Neil Smith asked if, when formulating this fair share fee, the Board considered that the applicant had built a half mile of McCurdy road at their own cost of $250K.  Travis Daniels replied that, given the scope of the applicant’s proposed project, $760.00 did not seem a substantial amount.  The Chairman asked who would be responsible for the fair share cost if the applicant refused to pay it.  The Coordinator replied that the Town would be responsible.  James Nordstrom noted that a $250K road upgrade versus a $760.00 fee was not a big issue.  He and the Chairman agreed that this would not be a deal breaker.  James Nordstrom asked if the construction fee estimate was received or if the construction bond estimate was available.  The Coordinator replied that neither was yet available.  The Chairman clarified that it would then be difficult to act on the application tonight anyway.  James Nordstrom agreed and explained that without the aforementioned figures, the


applicant would need to agree to blank figures on the motion which he did not recommend for their sake.  The Chairman asked if the fair share fee should be waived.  James Nordstrom replied that it made no difference to him given the cost of the project.  Christine Quirk stated that she was not familiar with the McCurdy Road cost mentioned by the applicant.  Don Duhaime thought that if the Board made one developer pay their fair share cost then each developer should be responsible for their fee.  The Chairman noted that some developers did more offsite improvements than others.  Don Duhaime thought that was merely the cost of doing business.  James Nordstrom stated that the fair share cost should be applied here in order to remain fair and equal.  The Chairman agreed.
        The Chairman stated that the Board’s deadline for action on the application was April 28, 2005, and asked if the applicant was willing to extend the deadline to May 24, 2005.  Neil Smith asked if a verbal acceptance would suffice.  The Chairman replied that it would.  Neil Smith agreed to the extension date.  
The Coordinator noted that the temporary cul-de-sac Easement Deed and the draft of the Slope and Drainage Easement Deed still needed to be submitted.  Don Duhaime asked if fire sprinkler systems would be required for homes on the proposed lots.  The Chairman replied they would be.     
 
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Harvey Dupuis Family Trust,                 Major Subdivision, 6 Lots, Location: Carriage Road, Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/93 and 12/93-22, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to May 24, 2005, at 7:00 p.m.  Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.  

VISTA ROAD, LLC
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 were Brian Holt and Ernie Thibeault of Vista Road, LLC.
        Brian Holt submitted a copy of a letter from Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., which stated that she approved the drainage calculation revised by Jeff Kevan of T.F. Moran.  He added that Amy Alexander had relayed to the Planning Coordinator that all outstanding items on the plan had been adequately addressed.  Brian Holt noted that the road configuration remained the same with the only changes involving the manhole depth and the relocation of a drainage line, also addressed by Jeff Kevan.  He stated that all required items had been submitted which included the Warranty Deed, Site Specific Approval, Subsurface Approval and the Driveway Permit Application which was on file and added at the time of driveway construction.  Brian Holt added that the Road Entry Permit for Hutchinson Lane was also submitted.  He noted that Hutchinson Lane was formerly titled Hutchinson Road but changed to “Lane” per requirements of the Fire Department.  Brian Holt stated that all the required reviews for the application were complete and the applicant was requesting final approval by the Board tonight.  The Chairman stated that two waivers had been requested.  He noted the first waiver requested to be for drill holes along the stone wall boundary on the site in lieu of granite bounds and the second to be the location, name, width and administrative classification of proposed and existing streets and highways bounding, approaching, or within 400 feet of a lot line, per Section VI-F of the Subdivision Regulations.  James Nordstrom asked if the granite bounds under discussion were along Wilson Hill Road.  Brian Holt and the Coordinator replied that they were.
James Nordstrom noted Lot #9 on the plan in relation to an access way to a detention pond.  Don Duhaime asked if a profile for the gravel roadway to the detention pond should be submitted.  Brian Holt replied that the access way was drawn at 9-10% grades as the Road Agent requested, therefore, it met the Town’s criteria.  Don Duhaime commented that this access way encumbered much of Lot #9.  Brian Holt replied that this access way was provided because it was demanded of the applicant.  James Nordstrom noted that this access way would decrease the value of Lot #9.  Brian Holt replied that there was no other alternative in accessing the detention pond based on the Road Agent’s requirements.  He noted that before the applicant was instructed to redesign the access way it was not as intrusive to Lot #9.  
        James Nordstrom asked if the Board had received the construction estimate.  The Coordinator replied they had not.  James Nordstrom then asked if a cost to build was available.  Brian Holt replied that the bond estimate was $376K.  The Chairman asked what other items were outstanding.  The Coordinator replied that Town Counsel was still reviewing the legal documents.  She added that all necessary studies had been submitted some time ago and that the bond and construction estimates were the only two amounts not confirmed by Dufresne-Henry, Inc.  The Chairman thought these items could conditions to the approval.  The Coordinator clarified that these items could be left blank in the conditions precedent of the approval if the applicant agreed.  She added that another condition could be added to the end of the approval that noted if the amounts of the bond and construction estimates came in over what was expected this could be reviewed by the Board.

James Nordstrom MOVED to accept and grant the waivers requested by the applicant for  drill holes along the stone wall boundary on the site in lieu of granite bounds and the location, name, width and administrative classification of proposed and existing streets and highways bounding, approaching, or within 400 feet of a lot line, per Section VI-F of the Subdivision Regulations.  Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.  

                The Chairman stated that the waivers granted in the above motion should be noted on the plan.  He added that because no numbers were yet available for inspection costs and no confirmation had been received that the applicant’s bond amount was adequate, the applicant could choose to leave these items blank in the motion for acceptance or postpone the acceptance to another hearing.  Ernie Thibeault stated that he was agreeable to leaving these items blank temporarily in the motion for acceptance and noted that historically his bond estimates had met or exceeded final figures.  The Chairman noted that if the figures were off further discussion by
the Board would be required.
        Ernie Thibeault stated that he would like to revisit the design of Lot #9 because he felt the drainage issue could be better designed while still meeting the Town’s requirements.  He asked if he could reserve the right to bring a revision before the Board.  The Chairman replied that he could do so but could not guarantee that the Board would agree to the revision.  Ernie Thibeault replied that this was understood.  Don Duhaime asked if a profile of the access to the detention pond should be required.  James Nordstrom thought that this access involved more of the Road Agent’s expertise than the Board’s.  Roch Larochelle, noted that the Road Committee which reviewed this design in conjunction with the Road Agent had required an access road of 10% maximum grade and 12 foot maximum width.  He added that where the access road was placed and how it was designed was the applicant’s choice.
        James Nordstrom asked if the applicant was comfortable with an open-ended construction inspection estimate for now.  Brian Holt replied that was acceptable.  Ernie Thibeault replied that this was not an issue and they assumed they would receive a fair estimate.  The Chairman noted that they had not received complaints regarding the accuracy of these estimates in years, in fact, since the applicant’s former issue on a prior application.  

                James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan of Vista Road, LLC, Major         Subdivision, 14 Lots, Tax Map #6/40-5, Wilson Hill Road, 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 submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F.
        4.  Receipt of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.'s estimate for construction monitoring inspections.
        5.  Receipt of Dufresne-Henry final approval of the road plans and profiles.
6.  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.
        7.  Submission of the security, in the amount to be confirmed by Dufresne-Henry and in the form of a bond, for the construction of Hutchinson Lane as shown on the approved plans and profiles.  Further discussion may be required.
        8.  Submission of the estimated construction inspection fees regarding the construction of Hutchinson Lane, in the amount to be determined by Dufresne-Henry.  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.
               9.  Approval of the language of the Declaration of Use Covenants and Restriction
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.
         10.  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.
         11.  Approval of the language of the Warranty Deed by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
   12.  Submission of executed Warranty Deed .  The deed shall be held in escrow until
          compliance to the conditions subsequent is confirmed at which time the cost of
          recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
            13.  Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
            14.  Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or                
                 the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
         15.  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 1, 2005, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board.  Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.

        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.          Hutchinson Lane 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 road, and the release of the security for same after a compliance inspection and hearing is held.
3.          Driveway locations on Hutchinson Lane 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 Section IV-F.
6.      Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD.
        7.     The applicant shall install road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) to the                                 satisfaction of the Road Agent.
        8.             Driveway permits must be approved for completed acceptable installation by the
                Road Agent and Planning Board prior to the issuance of any Certificates of
                Occupancy (CO's) for the related lots.
        9.             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 guardrails 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.
        10.    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 August 1, 2006, 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.

       James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Road Entry Permit Application #04-120, Tax     
       Map/Lot #6/40-5, for proposed Hutchinson Lane, with the Standard Planning Board         
       Requirements: the new road shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be         applied to the road; the new road intersection with Wilson Hill Road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the new road shall intersect with Wilson        Hill Road at an angle of 60-90 degrees.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it     PASSED unanimously.

DODGE, JAMES & CLAIRE   Adjourned from 9/28/04
NEW BOSTON SELF STORAGE
Public Hearing/NRSPR/Self Storage Expansion

Location: Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/21-3
Commercial “COM” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were James and Claire Dodge.  No abutters or interested parties were present.
Claire Dodge stated that three issues had been addressed on the plan since the last meeting with the Board.  She noted the first issue to be the amendment of the existing State Driveway Permit obtained in September, 2004, which was resubmitted to the Planning Department.  Claire Dodge stated that the second issue involved the Dredge and Fill Permit which was received in February, 2005, and also submitted to the Planning Department.  She added that the third issue was the submittal of the amended plan where sheet one now referenced the Dredge and Fill Permit and construction of a retaining wall in the wetlands on the site.  She noted that an incorrect abutter address was corrected on sheet #2 of the plan.  Claire Dodge clarified that there were no changes made regarding the proposed building’s location, size or configuration.
        The Chairman noted that a letter from DES stated that they would be monitoring the reclaiming of the wetlands as the applicants’ project progressed.  Claire Dodge explained that Harry Murray, LLS, would be reporting to DES with photos and a written report.  James Nordstrom noted that the deadline for this written report was mentioned in the DES letter to be September 31, 2005.  He then asked if proposed wetlands impacts were 750 s.f.  Claire Dodge replied that the exact measure was closer to 735 s.f.  
        The Coordinator noted that no other outstanding items remained on the plan.  The Chairman clarified that the Board would not take any action with regard to the wetland aspects of the plan as DES would be responsible for the monitoring of that matter.  The Coordinator replied that was the case.  James Nordstrom added that the Board would not address compliance until the DES conditions regarding the wetlands were met.  The Chairman asked if the proposed storage building would be the same as the existing structures in reference to lighting, traffic flow, with no gates or bars.  Claire Dodge replied that was correct.  Christine Quirk asked to review a copy of the plan as she was not familiar with it.  The Coordinator provided a plan copy to Christine Quirk.

                James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Major Site Plan of Land of New Boston Self         Storage, LLC, by James & Claire Dodge, to construct a new 3,630 s.f. self storage       building on the same site as the existing self storage buildings, 175 Weare Road, Tax   Map/Lot #5-21-3, subject to:

                CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
                1.  Submission of a minimum of three (3) revised site plans that include all of the                                  checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
          2.  Execution of a Site Review Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be May 5, 2005, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that   
the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval

            CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1.  All site improvements are to be completed as per the approved site plans.
         2.  The deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be December 31, 2005, at which time, or upon prior receipt of notification that the improvements as                 shown on the plan have been completed, a site inspection shall be performed and a                    compliance hearing held, prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy/Use  Permit to be issued by the Building Department.
            3. No occupancy/use of the areas included in this application and plan shall be permitted until the site improvements as noted have been completed and a compliance hearing held.
                Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
                         
             At 8:30 p.m. the Planning Board took a 15 minute break.

BOYLE, MICHAEL & JANIE, A.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Lot Line Adjustment & Major Subdivision/4 Lots
Location: 45 Barss Drive and Joe English Road
Tax Map/Lot #14/56-7 & 58
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering, and the applicant, Michael Boyle.  An abutter present was G. Paul Koning and a friend.
        Ray Shea stated that the applicant proposed a lot line adjustment and subdivision of two parcels; one on Barss Drive, Lot #14/56-7, which was 8.4 acres with an existing house and the other on Joe English Road, Lot #14/58, with 19.7 acres and an existing house.  He added that the proposal involved adjusting the lot line between the two lots so that the parcel on Joe English Road obtained 20 acres in order to be subdividable into two front lots and two back lots.  Ray Shea noted that the lot on Barss Drive would then end up with 8.2 acres.  He explained that a new driveway would be constructed for the existing house on Joe English Road in a southerly location from the original driveway which in turn would service one of the proposed back lots.  
Ray Shea noted that new driveways were proposed for each of the remaining front and back lots.  He added that no Dredge and Fill or State Subdivision Approval was required for this plan.
        The Chairman asked what the orange shading represented on the plan.  Ray Shea replied that the orange shading noted wetlands.  The Chairman asked the proposed location of the house on the top left lot when viewing the plan.  Ray Shea replied that the proposed house would be constructed at the front of that lot.  He added that no wetland crossing would be required for that lot’s construction as there was a large amount of area to work with.  Ray Shea noted that he had reviewed checklist items with the Planning Coordinator which had been addressed on the plan.  James Nordstrom asked if the Driveway Permit Application for Lot #14/58 had been submitted.  The Coordinator replied that it had been previously approved by the Board, a fact that she had forgotten.  Ray Shea stated that the Driveway Permit Application was for the proposed driveway for the existing house.
        The Chairman asked if the land on the site could be considered flat.  Ray Shea replied that it was and that while there were some slopes ranging from 15-25% the plan met the requirements of the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  He noted that the plan was drawn with two foot contours.  The Chairman stated that a waiver for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies had been requested.  Ray Shea replied that was correct.  The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the Conservation Commission had requested notification of the site walk date.  The Coordinator replied that they had.  James Nordstrom asked what the applicant’s justification was in requesting the waiver for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies.  Ray Shea replied that this plan proposed a small project that would generate no adverse impacts as it avoided wetlands.  He added that he believed the erosion control measures on the plan were sufficient to fulfill the Board’s requirements.
        Douglas Hill asked what the distance was between the property lines of the proposed driveways of Lot #’s _____ and ______.  Ray Shea replied that the distance was approximately 900 feet.  Douglas Hill asked why two separate driveways were proposed so close to each other.  Ray Shea noted that historically the Board was not in favor of common driveways.  Douglas Hill asked if the driveways in question would affect wetlands.  Ray Shea replied that they would skirt around wetlands and create no impacts.  The Chairman noted that if the wetlands were impacted that area could not qualify as a lot.  He added that it would also be difficult to get two potential lot owners to agree to maintain 900 feet of area if the proposed driveways became one common driveway.  The Chairman noted that if these driveways were proposed off a main feeder road such as Bedford Road a common cut would have been preferred.  Don Duhaime asked if the proposed driveway for Tax Map/Lot #14/58-3 could be located anywhere else than the noted location.  Ray Shea replied that this driveway was proposed for the current location because it afforded optimum sight distance given the hill crest noted on the plan, otherwise the driveway would have to be moved to the opposite side of the lot.  Michael Boyle noted that constructing the driveway for Lot #14/58-3 in the proposed location would offer 300 feet of road frontage with no breaks needed in an existing stone wall.  James Nordstrom asked if it was conceivable that the three proposed driveways could share one entrance off the roadway.  Ray Shea noted the location of the existing driveway on Joe English Road in relation to the abutter’s driveway across
the street.  He added that an existing buffer to the north meant that it would be better to construct the driveways north of that rather than have all three driveway entrances across from the abutter.  
Ray Shea noted that a common cut could also work but should again be staggered away from the neighbor’s driveway entrance for the same reason.  Abutter G. Paul Koning stated that Barss Drive would offer an attractive entrance location for the driveway to Lot # _____ but was unsure of the right of way in that area.  Ray Shea replied that the status of the right of way was unclear as the extension off Barss Drive was never fully addressed by the Town as an accepted portion or road.  He added that the Selectmen’s approval would be required in order to use that location.  Michael Boyle noted that road frontage would be an issue in that area.  Ray Shea agreed and explained that there was only 50 feet of Class V road in that area because that was the point at which the Town maintained portion ended on Barss Drive.  The Chairman stated that he did not know what the current level of traffic was on Joe English Road.  G Paul Koning replied that he generally saw commuter traffic and school buses at certain times of the day.  The Chairman wondered if any benefit would be gained by grouping the proposed curb cuts.  Ray Shea noted that this would require breaks in the existing stone wall.  The Chairman asked if the driveway locations were flagged.  Ray Shea replied they were not but could be.  The Chairman asked that the centerlines of the proposed driveways be flagged.  He assumed that the wetlands were already flagged and that both items could be viewed on a site walk.
        James Nordstrom asked for clarification on the waiver requested for the topographic mapping of Lot #14/56-7.  Ray Shea replied that the land was surveyed to show that it met the requirements for soils and slopes rather than doing topographic mapping for the entire area.  James Nordstrom asked the slope characteristics of this lot.  Ray Shea replied that there was a 10% change in elevation from the road to the existing house.  Michael Boyle agreed.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept and grant the waivers requested in a letter dated       
        March 10, 2005 by Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering for the Traffic,       
        Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies and the remaining topographic portion of Tax    
        Map/Lot #14/56-7.  Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Michael J. and Janie A. Boyle,       
        Lot Line Adjustment and Major Subdivision, 4 Lots, Location: 45 Barss Drive and Joe     
        English Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/56-7 and 58, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as  
        complete.  Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        The Chairman stated that the Board’s deadline for action on the application was June 30, 2005.  He asked if the owners of the lots were classified as Michael J. and Janie A. Boyle or Michael J. Boyle Corporation.  Michael Boyle replied that the lots were split with those two owners.  The Chairman asked if changes would be required based on that information.  The Coordinator replied that changes could be made in the revised plan.
        The Chairman asked about steep slopes on the site.  Ray Shea replied that the steep slopes were in the range of 15-25% and shaded on the plan.  James Nordstrom asked if there were any slopes greater than 25% on the site.  Ray Shea replied there were not.  He noted that there was one area of an eight foot drop at a slope of 25%, however, that portion did not meet the criteria stipulated in the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  The Chairman asked what fire fighting


provisions were proposed on the plan.  Michael Boyle replied that a cistern was located at the beginning of Barss Drive along with a fire pond at its cul-de-sac.  The Chairman asked why the applicant considered this pond a fire pond.  Michael Boyle replied that the pond contained a dry hydrant that was maintained to code and usable.  The Chairman asked if the applicant planned to install fire sprinkler systems in the homes to be constructed on the site.  Michael Boyle replied that this was a probability.  He added that the existing house on Lot #14/58 was thirty years old and did not have fire sprinklers.  The Chairman asked Michael Boyle if he planned to build on the lots or sell them.  Michael Boyle replied that he was unsure, adding that he built three homes on Barss Drive and owned seven lots which he had yet to build on.  He added that he mainly did site work these days.  The Chairman noted that Michael Boyle had installed sprinklers in his own home and asked why.  Michael Boyle replied that at the time he constructed his home he had discussed the benefits of a fire sprinkler system with John Bunting.  He added that the system cost between $300-$500 and was installed before the standard five hundred gallon reserve tank was required, therefore, it ran off of his private well with a 100 gallon reserve tank.
        James Nordstrom noted that the Conservation Commission wished to attend the site walk with the Planning Board.  A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, April 30, 2005, at 8:30 a.m.  The Chairman stated that the results of this site walk along with any new information submitted would be discussed at the applicant’s next hearing.
        
        James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Michael J. and Janie A. Boyle,      
        Lot Line Adjustment and Major Subdivision, 4 Lots, Location: 45 Barss Drive and Joe     
        English Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/56-7 and 58, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to  
        June 14, 2005, at 7:30 p.m.  Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

This will be an informational session with Vista Road, LLC, to discuss a potential Subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #’s 6/33 and 6/40-2, Wilson Hill Road.

        Brian Holt stated that only small scale plans were available for the Board’s review at this point.  He noted that his questions this evening were to do with the new Steep Slopes Ordinance Use Permit requirement.  Brian Holt stated that it was understood that a Wetland CUP could be used as a template for a CUP on steep slopes but asked if that CUP would be considered as a permit or an item for the Town Engineer’s review.  James Nordstrom replied that the Board had not yet dealt with such a CUP but felt that it would serve in the same manner as a CUP for wetlands where the plan would need to detail construction and work in the CUP area, with a bond put in place and the Board’s approval.  Brian Holt asked for further clarification on how the steep slopes CUP would address the plan.  James Nordstrom explained that it would address the plan in the same manner as the CUP for wetlands did where the justification for access to certain areas would need to be provided.  Brian Holt assumed that the CUP for steep slopes would also be required for proposed road locations that had existing slopes of 15% or greater.  The Coordinator noted that the CUP was the vehicle by which an applicant could submit their Stormwater Management Plan for an application in areas of slopes that ranged from 15-25%.  She added that the permit form for the CUP would then be submitted and reviewed in conjunction with the road construction plan by the Town Engineer.  Brian Holt stated that the applicant’s theory on erosion control was that if it was administered correctly and according to an applied design almost anything could be done on a site within reason.  James Nordstrom stated that this was why the Steep Slopes Committee ultimately decided on a CUP requirement.  Ernie Thibeault added that such a CUP would give an applicant the ability to incorporate stormwater controls into a plan.  The Chairman clarified that an applicant would first be required to demonstrate on their plan that stormwater controls could be applied to areas of slopes in the range of 15-25%.  Ernie Thibeault asked if this meant that the Board could then take such areas under consideration as buildable.  The Chairman replied that if such areas were in the slope range of 15-25% the CUP would demonstrate that the applicant would take the required precautions necessary when building in those locations.  Ernie Thibeault wished to confirm that the presence of a CUP would not waive the requirement for possible building envelopes on a plan.  The Chairman replied that was correct.  Ernie Thibeault clarified that an applicant could prove the ability to control stormwater and erosion, secure a CUP and still be required to provide building envelopes on a plan.  James Nordstrom explained that the CUP process could not be used to waive the 1.5 acre of contiguous flatland requirement for a lot.  Brian Holt asked if any other applicants had gone through a CUP process for steep slopes.  The Coordinator replied that a CUP was pending for the Nixon subdivision on Lyndeborough Road for a driveway to a proposed house lot.  Douglas Hill asked if the building envelope was an issue for that plan.  The Coordinator replied that it was not.  Brian Holt thanked the Board for their time.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 26, 2005

1.      Approval of minutes of March 22, 2005, with or without changes. (Distributed at the     
        April 12, 2005, meeting.)

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of March 22, 2005, as written.     
        Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

2.      Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Swanson Road, Tax         
        Map/Lot #6/32-25, for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.
        (drive by prior to meeting)

        James Nordstrom and Don Duhaime stated that they had viewed the above noted driveway.  Don Duhaime asked what maximum driveway grade was allowed by the Town.  The Chairman replied that 10% was the maximum grade allowed on driveways.  Don Duhaime stated that in that case the above noted driveway grade should be satisfactory.  James Nordstrom asked if the 20 scale 8.5” by 11” driveway design provided by R.J. Moreau could be attached to the Driveway Permit and included as a condition in its approval.  The Coordinator replied this could be done and had been done in the case of other Driveway Permit approvals.  She added that other Driveway Permits such as those approved for the Foistner application had been required to submit a lot development sketch at the time of the Driveway Permit application and that requirement had been noted on the Subdivision plan itself.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #25-010, Tax       
        Map/Lot #6/32-25, 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 approval it is stipulated that the driveway shall be constructed according to the design plan attached to the Driveway Permit unless an amendment is made.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3.      Driveway Permit Application for Elsie Golding, Ridgeview Lane, Tax Map/Lot #11/58,      
        for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.
        
James Nordstrom stated that the above noted lot would pose considerable difficulties for its driveway’s construction.  He asked if the construction requirements would be based on the most recent Driveway Regulations drafted.  The Coordinator replied that it would not be because Town Counsel had not yet approved the language for the Driveway Regulations.  Douglas Hill asked the length of the above noted driveway.  James Nordstrom replied that the length seemed not to exceed 150 feet, however, the existing grade from the entrance on Ridgeview Lane to test pits dug on the lot appeared to be a 20% grade going downhill.  Douglas Hill asked if engineering had been done on the site.  James Nordstrom replied that he did not think that was the case.  The Chairman noted that the Board could add this driveway to the site walk agenda.  James Nordstrom noted that the neighborhood surrounding this lot had been developed 20 years ago and it seemed that this lot had remained undeveloped because of its challenging entry point.  The Board gave consensus to conduct a site walk of this driveway on April 30, 2005.

4.      A copy of a letter received April 19, 2005, from Carem L. Bennett, Owner, Carem’s       
        Cakes, to the New Boston Planning Board, Re: Home based cake business, for the
        Board’s review and discussion.

The Coordinator noted that, in her letter to the Board, Ms. Bennett had qualified that the  
four criteria to omit the requirement for Site Plan Review were met: no employees, no customers, no sign and no exterior storage.  The Board determined that the standard letter should be sent to Ms. Bennett clarifying that any changes to these criteria may require site plan review in the future.  

5.      Endorsement of Subdivision Plan, Heidimarie and John Palmer, Tax Map/Lot #11/118, Hooper Hill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

        The Board postponed the endorsement of this item to the end of the meeting.

6.      Endorsement of Subdivision Plan, Curtis Hill, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #10/3, Old Coach         
        Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.     

        The Board postponed the endorsement of this item to the end of the meeting.

7.      A copy of a fax received April 20, 2005, from Andrew A. Prolman, Prunier, Leonard &     
        Prolman, PA, to the Board, re: Hopkins Road request for an extension to deadline of     
        May, 1, 2005, for the Board’s action.

        The Chairman asked what length of extension was being requested.  The Coordinator replied that a 90 day extension from the deadline date noted above was requested by the applicant.

        Travis Daniels MOVED to extend the deadline date for 13-15 Hopkins Road, Tax    Map/Lot #13/5, Hopkins and Salisbury Roads, 90 days beyond the original deadline date   of May 1, 2005.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

8.      Daily road inspection reports dated, March 23rd and April 4th, from Dufresne-Henry, Re:         Indian Falls, were distributed for the Board’s information.

9.      Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Hollis for May 3, 2005, re:
        conditional use permit to co-locate antennas and an equipment shelter to an existing    tower.

10.     Distribution of minutes of April 12, 2005, for approval at the meeting of May 10, 2005,         with or without changes.

11.     A copy of a letter dated April 25, 2005, from Cronin & Bisson, to the Selectmen, re:    
        Motion for Rehearing of the decision on the adoption of the Steep Slopes Ordinance, was distributed for the Board’s information.

12.     Christine Quirk asked if the Board had any more information available tonight regarding her request at the previous meeting to open the Beaver Hut Café to the public.  The Coordinator replied that she was still researching this topic.


5.      Endorsement of Subdivision Plan, Heidimarie and John Palmer, Tax Map/Lot #11/118, Hooper Hill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

        The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Lot Line Adjustment Plan.

6.      Endorsement of Subdivision Plan, Curtis Hill, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #10/3, Old Coach         
        Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.     

        The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.

        At 9:40 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Christine Quirk seconded the
        motion and it PASSED unanimously.

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