The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom and Bob Furey; 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 Frank and Dorothy Fillmore, Jonathan and Jessica Willard, Burt and Wilene Knight, Karen Hall, Mitch Larochelle, Bob Todd, LLS, Janet and Lou Nixon, Mike Dahlberg, LLS, Will Lambert, John McLellan, Dave Walker, PE, Hans Hassel, David Craig, Wayne and Barry Charrest, Julie and Matt Dillon, Jay Marden and Sara Hogan.
FILLMORE, FRANKLIN & DOROTHY Adjourned from 3/22/05
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Jessica Lane
Tax Map/Lot #14/36 & 36-1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants, Franklin and Dorothy Fillmore. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman asked if the recent passing of the Steep Slopes Ordinance had effected any changes to the application. Dorothy Fillmore replied that Earl Sandford of Sandford Surveying and Engineering had informed them that given the stipulations of the Ordinance they could not subdivide Tax Map/Lot #14/36. Frank Fillmore asked if the Steep Slopes Committee would be revisiting the terms of the Ordinance and asked what criteria they would reexamine. The Chairman replied that the Steep Slopes Committee would be focusing on several of the Ordinance’s criteria including how much contiguous flat land should be required on a lot and whether the 25% slope range was too prohibitive and should be raised to 30%. Frank Fillmore thought that it might be
prudent to postpone their application until these issues were reviewed by the Steep Slopes Committee. The Chairman noted that the Fillmores had the option of either adjourning or withdrawing their application. Frank Fillmore stated that he felt the application fees he was required to pay were excessive and he did not want to lose the money he paid by withdrawing his application.
Dorothy Fillmore stated that they had known nothing about the Steep Slopes Ordinance when they filed their application with the Planning Department on November 8, 2004. She added that they had promptly paid the application fee of $403.00 when they received the bill and were subsequently told by the Planning Assistant that their application should involve one meeting with the Board. Dorothy Fillmore further added that they then received another bill from the Planning Department followed by no approval from the Board due to the Steep Slopes Ordinance posting. She stated that she felt they had not been treated fairly and noted that they had paid $10K in surveying fees while following all the Town’s requirements in place at that time. Dorothy Fillmore added that they had owned this property and
paid taxes on it for 40 years stressing that this was only a one lot subdivision. The Chairman stated that the Fillmore’s only recourse would involve a variance granted by the ZBA. Dorothy Fillmore stated that this was a
very upsetting matter and believed that the Board should have had the courtesy to inform them that their subdivision proposal would not be viable due to the Steep Slopes Ordinance Posting. The Chairman noted that at that time it was not known whether the Ordinance would pass the Town vote. Dorothy Fillmore noted that they were not informed of the Steep Slopes Ordinance’s effect on their application until their meeting with the Board on December 4, 2004.
The Chairman asked what the applicants had paid in fees to the Planning Department. Dorothy Fillmore replied that the fees totaled to $703.00. The Planning Assistant explained that because the Coordinator was on maternity leave at the time of the plan review, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., performed this task at an additional cost to the applicant. The Chairman asked if the applicants knew what the slopes were on Lot #’s 14/36 and 14/36-1. Frank Fillmore replied that they did not but that the Board should have that information. He added that they had never seen a topographic mapping of the site. James Nordstrom thought it curious that the applicants had paid $10K in survey costs and had not been provided a topographic mapping of their site. Dorothy Fillmore noted that the figure was
closer to $9.2K plus test pit fees. James Nordstrom clarified that the Fillmores were provided no copies of the site’s topography. Frank Fillmore replied that they had copies of the site plan but not the topographic map. Dorothy Fillmore noted that the proposed driveway to Lot #14/36-1 was flat in addition to the proposed location for its house, therefore, she did not believe their proposal conflicted with the intent of the Steep Slopes Ordinance. She added that Mr. Marvel’s tree farm was 1,000 feet from the site, a cistern was installed nearby many years prior and the road to access the site was paved.
James Nordstrom asked for a chronological history of the application beginning with its submission. The Coordinator replied that the application was filed on November 8, 2004. The Chairman asked when the draft of the Steep Slopes Ordinance was posted. The Planning Assistant replied that the Ordinance was posted on November 12, 2004 and that the applicants’ first hearing date was December 14, 2004. James Nordstrom clarified that an acceptance hearing before the aforementioned date would not have been possible. The Chairman asked if the fees paid by the applicant had been submitted prior to the posting of the drafted Steep Slopes Ordinance. Dorothy Fillmore replied that they received their first bill
from the Planning Department on December 6. 2004. The Chairman asked at what point the Fillmores were advised that the Steep Slopes Ordinance could affect their application and, additionally, the fee charged by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., for the plan review. The Planning Assistant replied that the Fillmores were charged more than Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s standard $80.00 for a plan review of a Minor subdivision because it took longer than the average amount of time. The Coordinator added that at the meeting of December 14, 2004, Earl Sandford of Sandford Surveying and Engineering stated that he was aware of the Steep Slopes Ordinance draft and had thought that the application was grandfathered in because it had been submitted before the posting of the Ordinance. The Chairman thought that it would be acceptable to refund the application fees paid by the Fillmores given this scenario. The Coordinator noted that if the application was withdrawn the fees
would automatically be refunded less the certified notice letter fee and would total $225.00. Dorothy Fillmore stated that the mishandling of their case, not a refund of application fees, was her main issue. The Chairman thought it curious that so many individuals in the Town who would be affected by the Steep Slopes Ordinance had been unaware of its existence. Dorothy Fillmore stated that she and her husband were retired and did not involve themselves in Town politics. She added that she felt they deserved a waiver on the Steep Slopes Ordinance’s stipulations because their proposal would not create erosion on the site. James Nordstrom replied that the applicants could seek a waiver, however, it would need to be handled by the ZBA rather than the Planning Board. Dorothy Fillmore wondered what their chances were for receiving such a variance from the ZBA. The Planning Assistant noted that a similar case would be before the ZBA in May
2005. James Nordstrom noted that he could not predict how the ZBA would deal with these issues but thought that many waiver requests of this nature would arise going forward.
Douglas Hill asked if the Planning Board was the entity that would grant CUP’s to applicants in consideration of steep slopes on their property. The Chairman replied that they would deal with CUP’s for sites that had slopes under 25%. The Coordinator explained that the issue in this applicant’s case was the requirement for 1.5 acre of contiguous flatland on the lot as stipulated by the Ordinance. Dorothy Fillmore noted that their site only had 0.75 acres of contiguous flatland. The Chairman noted that the flatland requirement in the Ordinance was an item to be reviewed by the Steep Slopes Committee. He thought that the ZBA and the Steep Slopes Committee should review the information in this case. Dorothy Fillmore stated that anyone walking the site would determine
that it was flat and appropriate for their proposal. Douglas Hill asked if the applicant could reconfigure their lot to go back further as it appeared they could gain contiguous flat acreage by doing so. He thought that such a lot adjustment would not be difficult. Dorothy Fillmore asked if this reconfiguration would affect the abutting lot they resided on. Frank Fillmore did not think it would be affected and explained that he had configured the lot to its current layout in order to try not to make the land on the northern border useless. He added that as part of this application he intended to request a lot line adjustment between his lot of residence and Lot #14/36-1 so that the driveway for his residence would no longer have to cross proposed Lot #14/36-10. Dorothy Fillmore noted that they had letters from neighbors and abutters that stated they had no objection to their proposal. The Chairman pointed out that neighbors could not
dictate the Ordinance. He noted that if the Fillmores had the option of reconfiguring Lot #14/36-10 they should not approach the ZBA as that would be their recommendation also. The Chairman advised that the Fillmores approach Sandford Surveying and Engineering with this request while assuring sensitive areas between the lots for privacy. James Nordstrom thought that Earl Sandford had most likely explored different lot options and thought that it would be worthwhile for the Fillmores to discuss them together. He added that if an alternative configuration could not be work out then the applicants’ two remaining options were to seek a variance from the ZBA or to wait to see if the Ordinance was amended in March, 2006.
Dorothy Fillmore asked how this situation could be avoided in the future. The Chairman suggested that interested parties become involved in sub-committees for the Town or come to public meetings that addressed such topics. He noted that the Steep Slopes Ordinance draft involved three public meetings where input from individuals who owned land that could beaffected would have been welcomed by the Board. The Chairman further noted that if qualified input had been received the Ordinance may have been drafted differently, however, no one attended the sessions. Dorothy Fillmore stated that she understood the Ordinance to be for protection against erosion as well as the safety for emergency vehicles on steep driveways. The Chairman replied that was
correct. Dorothy Fillmore noted that the proposed driveway to their site would be flat. The Chairman replied that theirs was a unique situation considering that the area of the proposed house lot was also flat. He added that these were valid points that the ZBA would consider, however, he felt the best course of action was for the Fillmores to attempt a reconfiguration of Lot #14/36-10 as it would be the path of least resistance. The Chairman further added that if the applicants chose to withdraw their application they would be refunded at least $225.00 of the fees paid. Frank Fillmore preferred to adjourn the meeting to another date. The Chairman noted that if the Fillmore’s obtained any further information relative to their application prior to the next meeting date they should call the Planning Department.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Franklin and Dorothy Fillmore Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Jessica Lane, Tax Map/Lot #’s 14/36 and 14/36-1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to June 14, 2005, at 8:00 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 10, 2005
1. Approval of minutes of April 12, 2005, with or without changes. (Distributed at the
April 26, 2005, meeting.)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of April 12, 2005, as written.
Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Swanson Road, Tax
Map/Lot #6/32-23, for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.
(drive by prior to meeting)
3. Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Swanson Road, Tax
Map/Lot #6/32-4, for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.
(drive by prior to meeting)
Don Duhaime stated that he had viewed the above noted driveway and felt it resembled the design of the driveway for neighboring Lot #6/23-27. The Coordinator noted that the driveway design was drawn on the lot’s septic design. James Nordstrom noted that it appeared as though both driveways for these lots were to be constructed at a 10% grade off the roadway to a level pad at their garage entrances. The Chairman did not think much information regarding the driveway designs could be discerned from the sketch on the septic designs for the lots. Douglas Hill thought that the grade appeared to drop 12 feet over 100 feet. James Nordstrom thought the measure seemed slightly less than that. Don Duhaime
stated that the Driveway Permit Application for Lot #6/32-23 noted measured grade changes of 8 feet over 80 feet. James Nordstrom asked if anything should be required in addition to engineered plans or if a follow up inspection of the driveway post construction was warranted. He added that in the past the Board had required engineered driveway plans and the issue was the uncertainty that the plan approved was what would be built. The Chairman thought that the Board should have a final inspection of the driveway post construction as a condition of the Driveway Permit much like they did for driveways with positive grades into a roadway. He added that in this way the Board would not be faced with the possibility of a driveway constructed with a grade over 10% once the house was completed on that lot. The Chairman reiterated that he did not feel the sketch provided of the proposed driveway on the septic design provided enough detail. He noted that
the design stated an 8 foot drop over 80 feet to a level area, however once the platform was installed he felt that grade would change to 10% from the top of the roadway. The Chairman further noted the arrow on the septic design that indicated the grade measure starting from the edge of pavement. James Nordstrom added that the grading shown for Lot # 6/32-4 indicated a flatter area at the top of the proposed driveway and was more obvious while on the coinciding septic design the grading appeared to begin at the edge of the pavement. The Chairman stated that because the proposed driveways in both cases were at 10% maximum grades at the outset engineered plans were warranted. Bob Furey noted that a driveway profile would also be helpful. The Chairman stated that a Building Permit should not be issued for these lots until engineered plans of the proposed driveways were obtained. Bob Furey asked if engineered plans had been received for Lot #6/32-27. The Coordinator replied that
driveway was completed. The Planning Assistant added that its final approval was obtained. The Board gave their consensus to require engineered driveway plans for Lot #’s 6/32-4 & 23.
WILLARD, JONATHAN AND JESSICA Adjourned from 3/22/05
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Private School
Location: 20 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #18/20
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants, Jonathan and Jessica Willard. Abutters present were Burt and Wilene Knight.
Jonathan Willard stated that minor revisions had been made to the plan since the last meeting as a result of the site walk held with members of the Board, discussions with the School Board and input from abutters, Burt and Wilene Knight. He added that it was determined that the road behind the proposed preschool was privately owned by the New Boston Central School and that the School Board had agreed to work out an easement for the applicants. Jonathan Willard suggested that staggered drop off and pick up times for the proposed preschool’s students could alleviate traffic congestion on the horseshoe portion of the Central School’s driveway. He added that they had received an approval for the easement from the School Board that would allow traffic from the proposed preschool’s
traffic to cross over the private drive of the Central School to the back of the site. Jonathan Willard noted that an agreement had also been worked out with the Knights where the Willards would install a six foot fence which would curve around an existing stone wall and end just past the entryway to the site’s front apartment. He added that the proposed fence would not create sight distance issues on Route 13. Jonathan Willard stated that he had also spoken with the abutter on the other side of their property, Jean Lowell, earlier in the day and it was determined that the fence between her and the site would remain as is for now and be discussed at a later date. He noted that the Road Agent had requested that the driveway access at the back of the property be blocked off when the preschool was not in session to discourage traffic from using the driveway as a cut-through to the Central School.
Jonathan Willard stated that he hoped for an acceptance and approval of the application at tonight’s meeting. The Chairman asked if there were any outstanding items. The Coordinator replied that a waiver was requested to consider the application a Minor versus Major. She added that the main issues had been access to, and parking on, the site which had been addressed. The Coordinator asked how far apart the staggered drop offs were time-wise. Jonathan Willard replied that a set time had not been established and this was an open item with Rick Mathews, Principal of the Central School that would be explored at the beginning of the school year. He assumed that drop offs at the preschool could begin after the bulk of the Central School traffic had dispersed around 8:05 a.m. The
Coordinator thought that drop offs five minutes apart might not be practical given the likelihood of late comers. Jonathan Willard noted that as a rule, parents would not be getting out of their vehicles when drop offs and pick ups occurred, therefore, the time could be adjusted by five minutes if needed. He further noted, however, if ten cars were in a drop off line it would not pose a traffic problem on School Road so three or four additional vehicles could be comfortably added on to that total. The Chairman was concerned that the wording on the plan for staggered drop offs not include specific times. In this way he explained that the applicant would not risk non-compliance of their site plan if bus schedules for the Central School were to change. Jonathan Willard stated that Rick Matthews, Principal, had left that window open so that he could view traffic patterns at the start of the school year and have the preschool adjust their drop off and pick
up times accordingly. Bob Furey noted that the term “staggered” should be clearly defined on the plan. The Chairman agreed that the traffic should be noted as staggered in the sense that it was not disruptive to the New Boston Central School. He added that this would be the applicant’s responsibility so that an enforcement issue did not ensue. Bob Furey asked if the intent of the easement approved by the School Board was tied to specific time frames during the day, i.e., hours of operation. Jonathan Willard believed the easement was a standard access easement and that both he and the Central School would work together to assure that no disruptions were caused by the introduction of preschool traffic. The Chairman asked if the easement was conditional on its feasibility, in other words, if traffic disruptions did occur could the easement be revoked or would the Planning Board need to become involved. Jonathan Willard
replied that although the easement language had not yet been drafted he believed that some kind of stipulation to that regard would be included. The Chairman noted that this would also be a requirement of the Site Plan.
Don Duhaime questioned the two proposed parking spaces in front of the second apartment on the site that he viewed at the site walk. He thought that the parking spaces were too close to the apartment’s entranceway and could pose a safety issue in the case of an emergency. Jon Willard noted that the landscaping in that area would be reworked to add width around the parking spaces. He added that there were two means of egress from that apartment and there was four feet between its doorway and the closest parking spot. Don Duhaime asked if cars in these parking spaces would block the entryway to the proposed preschool. Jessica Willard explained that the proposed preschool’s entryway was located at the back of the existing barn. Jonathan Willard noted that this entranceway was
considered a third means of emergency egress for the residents of the apartments but would act as a separate entrance for the preschool. Douglas Hill suggested that if there was room to landscape in that area a no parking barrier could be installed similar to those in front of the entryways for fast food restaurants. Christine Quirk noted that the Fire Department would prefer no such barriers in the event that a stretcher needed to be maneuvered through the entryway. James Nordstrom stated that when the plan was accepted as complete it would be forwarded to the Fire Department for their review. The Coordinator stated that the Fire Department had seen the plan but no concerns had been noted by the Fire Department thus far. Jonathan Willard stated that he had also been in contact with Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, who had not raised any issues with the plan to date.
James Nordstrom asked if a one way traffic circulation would be created on the site by execution of the Site Plan. Jonathan Willard replied that this would be the case during the proposed preschool’s normal business hours. Bob Furey asked if the access to the proposed preschool would be paved. Jonathan Willard replied that it already was paved to a point just beyond the existing structure. Bob Furey asked if the applicants planned to install a “Do Not Enter” sign in the area of the driveway that could act as a cut through for traffic during non-business hours. Jonathan Willard replied that they would consider putting such a sign on a chain barrier across the rear portion of the driveway on the site. He added that the only people accessing the driveway would be
affiliated with the preschool and that they could be notified about the access rules at the fall open house.
James Nordstrom asked if a NH DOT Permit existed for the driveway as it entered off NH Route 13. Jonathan Willard replied that he assumed such a permit existed because River Road was a State Highway. James Nordstrom noted that the applicant proposed a change of use. The Chairman added that although the driveway was probably approved for residential use the applicant was now adding a daycare type facility to that use. James Nordstrom explained that DOT rules differed from those of the Town where the usage of the property was being changed and it should be confirmed that a Driveway Permit existed and what type of use it covered. He added that in order for the Board to approve the Site Plan it may be necessary for the applicant to secure a revised Driveway Permit. Jonathan Willard stated
that because the site had other businesses there in the past he believed they were proposing their business in a permitted use environment. James Nordstrom replied that the Driveway Permit may have been amended as usage on the property changed over time, however, a current or updated copy of the Permit would be required by the Board. Bob Furey asked how long ago the property housed a veterinarian clinic. Jonathan Willard thought the time frame was less than ten years. The Chairman read the terms of the Permit for professional offices that were being proposed on the same road which stated that any change of use on the property would require a new Driveway Permit. He noted that this stipulation highlighted the fact that the State took their permitting process seriously and although he did not think there would be an issue for the applicant the State would still want the correct information on record.
James Nordstrom noted also that NH DES dealt with sewage loads and water capacities, and this was a similar circumstance as the driveway permit in that an existing application was in place and any amendment would need approval. The Chairman asked if these were the two final issues of the plan so that the applicant was properly informed. James Nordstrom wished to add that although he did not personally believe that the site was well suited for the usage proposed considering all factors, it was an approvable plan. He added that the applicant should be made aware that in order to have their plan approved the State’s involvement was necessary. The Chairman clarified that although James Nordstrom was not of the opinion
that the site was well suited for the usage proposed he would vote in favor of the application if the State Permits discussed were secured. James Nordstrom concurred. Jessica Willard stated that she wished they were informed of the Permit requirements earlier. Jonathan Willard noted that this was a frustrating curve ball when they had already met three times with the Board and were working towards opening the preschool in September, 2005. James Nordstrom replied that the fact that the site was located on a State Road and needed septic approval could not be compromised. Douglas Hill noted that the septic approval should not be an issue as the DES would want to know the number of bedrooms in the existing home and the capacity of the existing septic tank. Jonathan Willard explained that the reason he had proposed alternative composting toilets for the preschool was because the existing septic system on site was for a two residence load only.
Douglas Hill noted that DES would need to approve that alternative anyway. Jonathan Willard noted that the composting toilet system was an approved use by the State plumbing inspector. The Chairman clarified that the applicant would need the DES to sign off on a permit which assured that the waste load could be properly handled on the site. Douglas Hill thought that if the site had been commercial property in the past securing the State Driveway Permit should not pose an issue. He added that the DOT would be concerned with knowing the number of cars traveling to and from the site and sight lines onto Route 13.
Don Duhaime asked if an insurance certificate to bond the Town would be required as a
result of the easement access. Jessica Willard replied that the insurance information was given to Principal Rick Matthews. The Chairman asked if that was a condition of the easement. Jessica Willard replied that it was.
Bob Furey stated that he was of the same opinion as James Nordstrom in that he did not think the traffic pattern proposed on the plan was the optimum scenario but believed that the applicants had done a good job with the plan. He added that he was concerned with how the language of the easement would be written and the maintenance required to the easement access. The Chairman clarified that the approval of the plan was based on the receipt of the two State permits discussed tonight with the applicant.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Jonathan and Jessica Willard, NRSPR, Private School, Location, 20 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #18/20, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Abutter Burton Knight submitted a copy of an agreement between himself and the applicant regarding the proposed installation of a six foot fence between his property and 20 River Road. The Chairman stated that the applicant could read through the agreement and work out the details with the Knights. Burt Knight clarified that the applicant was already in agreement with these terms. The Chairman stated that the agreement could be part of the Site Plan agreement. He stressed that if the applicants could obtain the two outstanding State permits by the next meeting date that hearing should be a short one. He asked James Nordstrom if he thought any other issues existed for the plan. James Nordstrom replied that he did not think there were any other items to discuss other than the waiver
request for a Minor versus Major classification on the plan. The Chairman stated that he preferred a Minor status for the plan as no substantial site work was involved. He added that if the plan had a Major classification it would need to be redrawn. The Coordinator noted the classification issue involved the number of employees. James Nordstrom added that parking was also related. The Chairman stated that he did not think that any additional information could be gained by classifying the application as Major. The Coordinator noted that a Major classification would require the plan to be stamped by a surveyor at an additional cost to the applicant.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waiver requested by Jonathan and Jessica Willard to treat their application as a Minor versus Major Site Plan. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Burt Knight asked if the applicant would sign and initial the fencing agreement. The Chairman stated that this could be done before the applicant’s next scheduled hearing. Douglas Hill asked if the applicant had a septic plan. Jonathan Willard replied they did not as they would not be impacting the existing septic. Douglas Hill suggested that it could be helpful to the applicants to seek the advice of a local engineer regarding the State’s requirements for septic
systems.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Jonathan and Jessica Willard, NRSPR, Private School, Location, 20 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #18/20, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to May 24, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
NIXON, DAVID L. & JANET E. Adjourned from 3/22/05
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/3 Lots
Location: Lyndeborough Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/58
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and the applicant, Janet E. Nixon. Also present were Louis Nixon and Mitch Larochelle.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he had made minor revisions to the plan as a result of the Coordinator’s review which involved corrections to abutter names and addresses. He noted that granite bounds had been set at the front of the site and reinforced rods with aluminum caps at its rear corners. Bob Todd, LLS, further noted that setback lines on Tax Map/Lot #7/58-1’s 50 foot strip were shown on the final version of the plan. He added that because most of Tax Map/Lot #7/58’s property was in a conservation easement the possibility of future subdivision was unlikely.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that an existing utility line ran from the neighboring Hoyt home to a pump and spring noted on the plan. He added that this utility line was land licensed and a permitted use at $1.00/year accepted by written agreement but subject to revocation at any time. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that Mr. Nixon had several letters on record from the previous owners of their property (Morrison) that granted the Hoyts the license to use the utility line to the spring. He added that this license would most likely be revoked in the event that the Nixon’s sold their residential lot, Tax Map/Lot #7/58-2 to a third party. The Chairman asked if the utility line to the spring provided a water source to the Hoyt home. Louis Nixon replied that was correct.
Bob Todd, LLS, noted that sheets 1 and 2 of the plan set constituted a complete survey of Lot #7/58 and, although it had not been surveyed for this application, the reference plans had been previously surveyed by his office. Louis Nixon wished to note that the existing hiking trails open to the public would remain so and were not on the land proposed for subdivision. Bob Todd, LLS, clarified that the permitted use of these trails would continue.
Louis Nixon submitted a letter to the Board which Bob Todd, LLS, explained was an estimate of the cost to construct the proposed driveway for Lot #7/58-1 in the Steep Slopes District. He noted on the plan how the proposed driveway meandered along the existing slopes and followed the natural contours of the property. Bob Todd, LLS, further noted that it was 400 feet from the toe of the slope on the site to Lyndeborough Road, which was a gradual decline to a flat surface. He showed a 15% slope area on the plan that approached the proposed building site with pink shading representing slope disturbance in areas of the proposed driveway’s construction and grading next to the proposed house. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that one area with the greatest erosion potential
was along the proposed driveway at 6,500 s.f. of impact. He added that the construction of the proposed home would generate approximately 3,600 s.f. of impact. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the erosion control plan for the site proposed 3:1 slopes graded smoothly and coated with a compost blanket. He added that he was a proponent of the FiltrexTM system which employed starchy fills called tackifiers. Bob Todd, LLS, further added that the plan proposed that roadside ditches be lined with turf reinforcements and check dams along the length which would drain to a level spreader at the toe of the existing slope from which the water would be disbursed as sheet flow. He noted that the drainage areas would be small and the stormwater quantities minor which would not affect Town roads due to the proposed discharge locations. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the driveway profile was designed to meet Town driveway specifications with a 10% grade for most
of its length and a short span of an 8% grade near the house site. He noted that a cross section of the driveway profile showed a 12 foot width with two foot shoulders on either side with corresponding ditchlines. James Nordstrom noted that the majority of the 6,500 s.f. of impact involved the existing side slopes. Bob Todd, LLS, showed the 15% slope gradient which ran for approximately 40 feet. James Nordstrom added that at the time of the site walk he questioned where this impact would be and assumed the majority of it would be the resulting slope work done on the sides of the driveway or the driveway’s constructed turn into an existing slope. Bob Todd, LLS, stressed that the proposed driveway would traverse the natural contours of the property with some impact to side slopes that was unavoidable.
Bob Furey asked if a septic plan, test pits or soil analysis were done for the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that test pits were dug and discussed at the preliminary hearing with the Board. He noted that sheet #1 of the plan contained four test pit logs whose results yielded fine sandy loam to coarse sand and gravel with no refusal and percolation at two to four minutes per inch. Bob Todd, LLS, added that a seasonal high water table was not observed for any of the test pits dug and there were few stones encountered, hence, no restrictive layers and very favorable conditions. Louis Nixon noted that Dave Elliot was of the same opinion regarding the conditions of the site. Douglas Hill asked if all the erosion controls on the plan were necessary given the small
impact to the steep slopes on the property which were located a distance from Town roads. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that his concerns involved velocity and he felt that it could save the applicant money in the long run if turf reinforcements were provided at the outset of the project rather than the possibility that ditchlines would need to be reworked in the future. Douglas Hill asked how recently the trees had been cut along the proposed driveway at the time the site walk was held on the property. Louis Nixon replied that at that time the cut was three weeks old. He added that he was yet to see any runoff channels on the property and had monitored it all winter. Douglas Hill asked how the ditches would be lined. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the site contractor suggested stone and possible FiltrexTM with compost. James Nordstrom noted that the State was also starting to use this medium.
The Chairman asked what items were outstanding on the plan. The Coordinator asked the Board if Dufresne-Henry, Inc., would have to review the plan and inspect the driveway as was listed in Section V-V of the Subdivision Regulations. James Nordstrom asked if Dufresne-Henry, Inc., would need to review a plan prior to the issuance of a CUP for a wetland crossing on a site. The Coordinator replied that this would not be necessary because the Conservation Commission would have already reviewed the plan and site and a Dredge and Fill Permit would also be required. James Nordstrom clarified that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., would focus their review on the inspection of the linear footage of the proposed driveway that fell within the Steep Slopes District. The Chairman asked
if that inspection could be performed after the driveway was constructed. James Nordstrom added that the ultimate proof of an adequately designed driveway was evident two months post construction. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the applicant would incur additional design costs if the Town Engineer determined by a post construction review that the final grade of the driveway was not acceptable in accordance with the plan’s Erosion and Stormwater Management Plan as required by the Steep Slopes Ordinance. The Chairman asked Bob Todd, LLS, what his suggestion would be for this scenario. Bob Todd, LLS, offered that his office could check the driveway for final grade and the effectiveness of the Stormwater Management Plan after the driveway construction was completed. James Nordstrom noted that if the Board required the original preparer of the driveway design to certify that it was built according to the plan this would compare to the Board performing a
compliance site walk. The Chairman asked how much it would cost to have Bob Todd, LLS, certify that the proposed driveway was built to his plan design. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the cost would be less than what the Town Engineer would charge and his review would be in a more responsive timeline. The Chairman clarified that Bob Todd, LLS, could certify that the proposed driveway was constructed as he designed it. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was correct and he could also observe the effectiveness of the Stormwater Management Plan at that time. James Nordstrom asked the Coordinator’s opinion of this option as he did not feel the Town could be subject to any liability as a result. The Coordinator replied that she believed this scenario could work and be reviewed on a case by case basis for future plans. She added that this plan posed a unique scenario and Bob Todd, LLS’s, suggestion could be aptly applied here. Louis Nixon
noted that if the site experienced erosion all the way to Lyndeborough Road he would have a major issue which he did not foresee given the fact that the proposed house would sit 1,000 feet off the road and the site met the road at a flat gravel surface. The Chairman stated that he liked Bob Todd, LLS’s, suggestion as it would be less costly for the applicant than having Dufresne-Henry, Inc., perform the same inspection. He added that this suggestion may not be appropriate in all cases but was acceptable for this plan. James Nordstrom stated that a financial security would be required. The Coordinator noted that a formal waiver request would be required for the Town Engineer inspection as the Subdivision Regulations stated: “Technical review of any Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be conducted by the Town’s Consulting Engineering or other qualified professional consultant as determined by the Planning
Board at the expense of the applicant”.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waiver requested by Bob Todd, LLS, to Section V-V, H, of the Subdivision Regulations for the independent review of the driveway plan. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom asked the Coordinator if the Subdivision Regulations stated any specific requirements for formal inspections of driveways post construction. The Coordinator replied that the Regulations stated: “The Planning Board may require routine inspections to verify ongoing maintenance of water quality protection measure. Such inspections shall be performed by the Planning Board or its designated agent at reasonable times for the land owner, therefore, the Board was covered in that aspect.
James Nordstrom stated that the financial security for the CUP totaled $2K. The Chairman thought that figure seemed low. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that only a 40 foot section of the driveway was involved. James Nordstrom asked what form of security would be posted to the Town. Louis Nixon asked if a personal check would be acceptable. The Coordinator and Planning Assistant replied that it would be.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of David L. and Janet E. Nixon to construct portions of a driveway in the Steep Slopes Conservation District on property on Lyndeborough Road, known as Tax Map/Lot #7/58-1 as the two conditions for granting the Permit have been found to exist, subject to the following conditions
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of the financial security in the amount of $2,000 and in the form of a check.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be May 17, 2005, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should the conditions to approval not be fulfilled 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:
Completion of the site improvements as related to the construction of portions of a driveway in the Steep Slopes Conservation District, as shown on the approved construction design plan.
1a. The plan preparer, Robert Todd, LLS, shall certify that the on site construction meets the intent of the original design plan.
2. The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon notification to the Planning Board or designated agent by the applicant that the project has been completed, and a compliance hearing is held and confirms that the project has been satisfactorily completed by no later than September 1, 2005.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plat of Land of David L. & Janet E. Nixon, Tax Map/Lot #7/58, Lyndeborough Road, for the subdivision of two new lots, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,
including all checklist corrections, notes of waivers granted and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the
recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be June 01, 2005, confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, requiring no further action by the
Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #05-003, 05-004
and 05-005, 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. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
BOLTON, CHRISTOPHER (OWNER)
LAMBERT, WILL (APPLICANT)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Landscaping Material Supply Business
Location: Hemlock Drive # NH Route 114 a/k/a/ North Mast Road
Tax Map/Lot #3/52-26
Commercial “COM” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Mike Dahlberg, LLS, and the applicant, Will Lambert. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the applicant’s site had been previously approved for the same type of business, however, a site plan had never been prepared. He noted that the site was located at the intersection of NH Route 114 and Hemlock Drive with the Jenkins pit to the west and an existing cistern nearby. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the applicant was purchasing the property and would like to conduct a landscaping material supply business on the site, add some features and clean up the property. He added that the business was proposed on two levels of the property with the upper level for his business vehicles and equipment storage and the lower level being the operational area with materials. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted the yellow shaded areas on the
plan to be concrete bays which would house different gravel materials, the slope area for mulch and loam at the central location. He added that brush would be trimmed between the existing cistern and the site to improve sight distance and also create a better display area while the remaining brush would remain and serve as a buffer. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, pointed out wetlands existing to the east of the property which would not be impacted and two existing driveways on the site, therefore, no Driveway Permits were required.
Bob Furey asked how the site would be accessed. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the two existing driveways would be used. Douglas Hill asked the proposed hours of operation. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that they would be 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sundays. Douglas Hill asked if the business would operate on a summer schedule. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that it would. The Chairman noted that the applicant might chose to offer sand and salt materials in the winter. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that sand might be offered but supplying salt involved State storage requirements, therefore, was an unlikely choice of the applicant. Bob Furey asked if the site was a commercial district surrounded by a
residential-agricultural district. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted the zoning lines on the plan and pointed out that everything across from the site on Route 114 was commercial and to the south residential-agricultural. He noted the location of a duplex subdivision in the latter mentioned zone. The Coordinator stated that when a previous site plan was approved for this property the lower existing driveway was approved, however, no permit had ever been received for the upper existing driveway. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that he assumed a permit existed because of the existing paved apron on the upper driveway but would submit a Driveway Permit Application. The Chairman asked the distance between the two driveway entrances. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the distance was approximately 300 feet. Douglas Hill asked if traffic would utilize one driveway or the other with the upper driveway servicing a dumping area. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied
that was the case as there was a 20 foot drop from the upper level to the lower level.
The Chairman asked Mike Dahlberg, LLS, if had had addressed the Planning Department’s plan review. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that he had submitted the revisions to the Planning Department this morning. The Chairman asked if the applicant proposed a business similar to a contractor’s yard. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the proposed business could be thought of as a combined contractors yard and retail. Douglas Hill asked if the applicant proposed to service local landscaping companies. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that was correct and that additionally the applicant would offer retail services to home owners. The Chairman asked if any exterior lighting on the site was proposed. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied there was not. He added
that the applicant wished to improve the entrance location to the site so that it would be more aesthetically pleasing to customers and reline the existing drainage ditch in accordance with the drainage pattern of a nearby subdivision. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, further added that an existing berm on the property would be maintained. He noted that the prior owners had bulldozed gravel up to the wetlands border which would remain as a buffer. Douglas Hill asked if any areas on the site would be paved. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that only the aprons of the driveway entrances were paved and this would remain the case. Douglas Hill asked if crushed gravel or a dirt pack base existed on the site. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the base was composed of gravel. The Chairman asked if customer parking would be included on the plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that it was not planned to do so because the business would be of a “drive in and
drive out” nature. The Chairman then asked if signage would be proposed to facilitate the flow of customer traffic. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that this could be done but he felt that customer traffic would ultimately go where it wanted to once on site and not pay attention to directive signs. The Chairman asked if the location on the plan noted as “vehicle/trailer storage” would be manned for cash collection. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that it was not and was instead earmarked for use by J&N Landscaping and not for sublet. James Nordstrom clarified that this was an accessory use to the business. Bob Furey asked for an explanation of the light green slope area on the plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, explained that this was to be a loamed and seeded area against an existing heavily treed portion of the property which the applicant proposed to clean up. The Chairman asked what was noted on the plan by the dark green
shading. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that this coloring denoted woodlands.
The Coordinator asked if the grading on the noted slopes were considered to be in the Steep Slopes District. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that it was. Douglas Hill asked how wide the area was. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that it dropped twenty feet but could not say what the original width was as he could only map the existing fill piles. He noted that although the underlying material could be within the District the area could be considered man made due to the dumping of material throughout the years. Douglas Hill thought this area seemed very wide. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that it was approximately 1,000 feet. He noted that the area on the plan shaded in heavy green to the south would be untouched and pointed out the areas the owner proposed to
clean up. The Chairman asked if a permanent protection mechanism to the existing wetlands would be provided. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that this was the reason for the proposed berm on the site. Bob Furey asked if the berm would be composed of gravel. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that it would possibly be loamed and seeded. James Nordstrom asked if the site’s existing boulders and stone debris would be worked into the berm. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, explained that an existing silt fence was in place and currently two piles of stone debris could act as a temporary berm which could be replaced by the proposed berm once the piles were removed. The Coordinator asked how that proposal would be facilitated chronologically since operations on the site could not take place until the site plan was approved which in turn required that the site met all the plan requirements. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, suggested phasing the site work as was done on the
Sizemore plan which he had worked on previously with the Board.
A site walk was scheduled for May 21, 2005, at 8:30 a.m. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, expressed the applicant’s urgency to have the application progress quickly given the seasonal nature of his proposed business. He asked if the Board could give the applicant the next earliest meeting date after the site walk. James Nordstrom asked what fees were outstanding for the applicant noting that they would be substantial if calculated on the square footage of the site’s total area. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that he did not have that information and asked if the fees would be calculated on the square footage of the building on site. He added that the building area consisted of an 8’ X 20’ trailer and the remaining area was open land. The
Coordinator noted that the fee would involve the trailer which would be charged $0.05/s.f. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, asked that the Planning Department inform him of the total fee before the next meeting date.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Christopher Bolton & Will Lambert, NRSPR, Landscaping Material Business, Location: Hemlock Drive & NH Route 114 a/k/a North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/52-26, Commercial “COM” District, to May 24, 2005, at 7:45 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
GRANITE STATE CONCRTE CO., INC.
This will be a Public Hearing Pursuant to RSA 155-E.
The purpose of the hearing will be to consider the application by Granite State Concrete Co., Inc., pursuant to NH RSA 155-E to remove earth products from Tax Map/Lot #13/5,
Salisbury Road, New Boston, NH.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was John McLellan of Granite State Concrete Co., Inc. No abutters or interested parties were present. James Nordstrom recused himself as his company had prepared the site plans for this applicant.
The Chairman asked the procedure for the hearing. The Coordinator explained that the Board needed to determine if any issues of conflict existed as stipulated in RSA 155-E:4 which would result in a denial of the applicant’s gravel permit. She noted that most items could be confirmed by review of the plan and added that the only item that needed discussion was item IV-“When the issuance of the permit would be unduly hazardous or injurious to the public welfare;”. The Chairman then read RSA 155-E:4, Prohibited Projects as follows:
The regulator shall not grant a permit:
I. Where the excavation would violate the operational standards of RSA 155-E:4-a;
II. For excavation within 50 feet of the boundary of a disapproving abutter or within 10 feet of the boundary of an approving abutter unless approval is requested by said abutter;
III. When the excavation is not permitted by zoning or other applicable ordinance, provided, however, that in municipalities which have commercial earth resources on unimproved land within their boundaries, and which do not provide for opportunities for excavation of some of these resources in at least some, but not necessarily all areas within the municipality, or in the municipalities which have zoning ordinances which do not address the subject of excavations, excavation shall be deemed to be a use allowed by special exception as provided in RSA 674:33, IV, in any non-residential area of municipality, and the zoning board of adjustment shall grant such a special exception
upon a finding that:
(a) The excavation will not cause a diminution in area property value or unreasonably change the character of the neighborhood;
(b) The excavation will not unreasonably accelerate the deterioration of highways or create safety hazards in the use thereof:
(c) The excavation will not create any nuisance or create health or safety hazards; and
(d) The excavation complies with other special exception criteria as may be set out in applicable local ordinances.
IV. When the issuance of the permit would be unduly hazardous or injurious to public welfare:
V. Where existing visual barriers in the areas specified in RSA 155-E:3, III would be removed, except to provide access to the excavation;
VI. Where the excavation would substantially damage a known aquifer, so designated by the United States Geological Survey;
VII. When the excavation requires land use permits from state or federal agencies: but the regulator may approve the application when all necessary land use permits have been obtained; or
VIII. Where the project cannot comply with the reclamation provisions of RSA 155-E:5
and 155-E:5-a.
The Chairman noted that none of the above criteria applied to this application and further noted with regard to Section VI that based on the applicant’s presentations during Site Plan Review, he did not think the project would be “unduly hazardous or injurious to the public welfare”. The Board agreed. The Chairman also noted that the minimum express and operational standards and reclamation standards required by RSA 155-E:4-a & 155-E:5 had been met by the applicant’s submissions. John McLellan stated that a bond was currently in place for the adjacent Lot #4 the amount of which changed each year based on the amount of open acreage. He asked if one bond could now cover both lots since they would be excavated
simultaneously. The Chairman thought that would be acceptable. He asked how much open acreage would be involved including the presently open acreage of Lot #4. John McLellan replied that there would be very little open acreage on the new lot this year because the slope on the grandfathered lot would need to be excavated to access the new lot. He added that the grandfathered lot was in the town of Lyndeborough, NH. John McLellan further added that Lot #4 had four acres open presently and its bond was currently at $28K. The Chairman asked if the reclamation bond would need to be submitted when the approved lot was opened for excavation. The Coordinator replied that the bond needed to be submitted prior to the removal of top soil or other overburden. She added that the bond would be based on $7K per open acre. John McLellan thought that the bond would be submitted in the spring of 2006.
Christine Quirk MOVED to approve the Removal of Earth Products Permit by Granite State Concrete Co., Inc., to remove earth products from Tax Map/Lot #13/5, Salisbury Road, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a reclamation bond prior to the removal of topsoil or other overburden
in the amount of $7,000.00 per acre.
Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 9:30 p.m. the Planning Board took a ten minute break.
SEFF ENTERPRISES & HOLDINGS, LLC
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Foxberry Drive
Tax Map/Lot #8/24-30
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Dave Walker, PE, of Bedford Design Consultants and Hans Hassel.
Dave Walker, PE, stated that the application involved the third phase of Waldorf Estates which involved 19 lots. He added that the proposal was to subdivide Lot #8/24-30 located in the south easterly corner of the site, and over 7 acres, into a 2.25 acre lot with an additional backlot exceeding five acres and having 50 feet of frontage. Dave Walker, PE, added that the wetlands and soils for the third phase of Waldorf Estates were mapped, and designs for the proposed driveways submitted, at the time of the 19 lot subdivision application. He added that the driveway to the larger subdivided lot would bridge or span an existing wetland and pose no wetland impacts.
The Chairman stated that the deed language for fire sprinkler systems was missing for Lot #8/24-30-1. Dave Walker, PE, replied that draft copies of the deed language used on the other subdivided lots of the third phase had been supplied to the Planning Department. He also noted that the Standard Planning Board Note had been added to the plan requiring sprinklers. The Coordinator noted that she was not aware that the old draft copies submitted were meant for that purpose. She added that this was acceptable as the language had been previously approved by Town Counsel and there should be no issue as long as the correct documents were submitted at the appropriate time.
The Chairman stated that waivers had been requested for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. He noted that he did not believe the proposal would create any traffic or fiscal impacts. The Chairman asked for a description of the terrain on the site. Dave Walker, PE, replied that an Erosion Control Plan was submitted for the proposed driveway construction and because no wetlands would be impacted on the site a Dredge and Fill Permit was not required. He added that when the drainage calculation was performed in 2003 for the 19 lot subdivision they based it on twenty lots knowing that this proposal might be brought to the Board at a later date, therefore, the drainage calculation encompassed Lot #8/24-30-1. The Chairman asked if that was the lot
which was previously two lots. Dave Walker, PE, replied that it was not. He explained that when soil mapping was performed on the 19 lots it was discovered that enough material existed for an additional lot, however, the property owner did not wish to pursue a twentieth lot at that time. Don Duhaime asked what type of bridge the applicant proposed to construct that would not impact wetlands on the site. Dave Walker, PE, replied that the proposed bridge would span only 20 feet in width and would be constructed of steel beams and wood decking, or could be precast concrete. The Chairman stated that he had never heard of this option before. Dave Walker, PE, noted that some larger box culverts that measure 3’ X 6’ or 4’ X 8’ had been installed on lots in an earlier phase of the subdivision but involved wetland impacts. He then noted those lots on the plan. The Chairman stated that he had no issues granting the
waivers for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. He asked if there were any outstanding fees for the application. Dave Walker, PE, stated that a check was submitted for $332.00. The Chairman noted that the applicant had a small credit balance.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waivers requested for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Seff Enterprises and Holdings, LLC, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location, Foxberry Drive, Tax Map/Lot #8/24-30, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the Board’s deadline for action on the application was July 14, 2005. He asked if any portion of the site was in the Steep Slopes District. Dave Walker, PE, replied that two areas along the south western property line were greater than 15% slope at more than a 20 foot rise and equaled 0.3 acres. He added that there was 2.7 acres of contiguous dry upland, therefore, a net contiguous dry area of 2.4 acres on the five acre lot after subtracting the steep slopes.
The Chairman stated that Lot #8/84-30-1 did not appear to qualify as a backlot on one of the plan sheets while it did resemble a backlot on another. He explained that the Lot needed to be behind a front lot in order to avoiding “stacking”. Dave Walker, PE, replied that the Lot was a backlot and might be difficult to interpret as such because it was located on a corner of the parent lot. Douglas Hill asked how far the proposed backlot house would sit from the roadway. Dave Walker, PE, replied that it would be 360 feet off the right-of-way versus the proposed house on the parent lot which would sit 120 feet from the roadway. The Chairman noted that this information was not part of the criteria for a backlot which required exactly 50 feet of frontage,
over five acres and behind a front lot. Douglas Hill thought the map was deceiving because the proposed house for the backlot was at the original lot’s corner point. The Chairman noted, for example, that Lot #8/84-35 clearly presented itself on the plan as a front lot. Dave Walker, PE, stated that they abided by the Board’s definition when designing the backlot and felt they met the criteria of 50 feet of frontage and greater than five acres. He noted that Lot #8/84-30 could not be a backlot due to wetlands in the back portion of the property. Dave Walker, PE, added that one would have to view Lot # 8/84-30-1 by looking over Lot #8/84-30. The Chairman reiterated that he raised the question because the Board discouraged fifty foot strips that coincided with “stacking”. Hans Hassel noted that the site was not deep enough for “stacking”. The Chairman agreed. He added that in this case the backlot
due to its location in the corner could be argued to be a side lot which was not a valid definition.
James Nordstrom asked why the twentieth lot was not pursued at the time the drainage calculation was done with that number in mind. Dave Walker, PE, explained that the twentieth lot was not pursued at the time of the 19 lot plan because the application had already been in progress for 19 months when Site Specific Soil testing was stipulated by the Board and the applicant did not want to slow the plan’s progress further by adding a lot. Hans Hassel agreed that at that point in time a vesting issue existed and further delay of the application was not anyone’s preference. The Coordinator wished to state for the record that she did not recall the soil mapping issue and would have to look that up in the minutes. James Nordstrom clarified that the issue was
which Subdivision Regulations the plan was being reviewed under and when it was determined that the current Regulations would apply, the Site Specific Soil mapping became a requirement. Dave Walker, PE, added that the grade of the subdivision’s roadway was also
changed from 10% to 8% as the current Regulations required driveway entrances to be off a roadway with a maximum grade of 8%. The Chairman added that one lot was lost at that time in the beginning portion of the phase because of contiguous dry space which was the first major difference noted between the new Regulations versus the old Regulations.
James Nordstrom assumed that a Dredge and Fill Permit was issued for phase 3 which
noted the condition that no Dredge and Fill for further lot development would be allowed. Dave Walker, PE, replied that was correct and was the reason for the proposed span over the wetlands on the site. James Nordstrom asked if the phase three permit stated that DES would not issue any additional Dredge and Fill permits for lot development. Dave Walker, PE, stated that he believed this was the case as DES noted this stipulation on all Dredge and Fill Permits.
Bob Furey pointed out that the legend for the slopes on the mapping did not match what slopes were discussed such as “42-E: 25%+” Dave Walker, PE, explained that slopes of 25% and greater did exist, however, they did not meet the Steep Slopes Ordinance requirement of an elevation change greater than 20 feet. Bob Furey noted that “444-D” appeared to have the same ambiguity. Dave Walker, PE, replied that, again, the criteria for 20 feet of span did not exist in that location.
Douglas Hill asked about utilities for the site. Dave Walker, PE, replied that they would be above ground on the roadway but go under ground to the individual lots.
A site walk was scheduled for May 21, 2005, at 9:15 a.m.+/-. The Chairman asked that the centerlines of the proposed driveways be flagged along with wetlands and lot lines. He asked if steep slopes had been delineated in the field. Dave Walker, PE, replied they had not and asked if that was a requirement. The Chairman replied that it was not but asked Dave Walker, PE, if he could identify them by sight. Dave Walker, PE, confirmed that he or someone from his office would be present at the site walk to do so. The Chairman noted that this request was for the Board’s education regarding steep slopes, not because it was a requirement of this application.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Seff Enterprises and Holdings, LLC, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location, Foxberry Drive, Tax Map/Lot #8/24-30, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to June 14, 2005, at 8:45 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
NORTHERN SKY HOLDINGS by
DAVID CRAIG, MANAGER
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Law Office & Professional OFFICES
Location: 5 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #18/8
Commercial “COM” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and David Craig. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the site was formerly owned by Joan and Dana Haley and was conveyed to Northern Sky Holdings, LLC, managed by David Craig, on April 29, 2005. He noted that the final plans would reflect the change of ownership. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the property was located on the western side of NH Route 13, two doors down from Dodge’s Store.
He noted other nearby landmarks on the plan including a retail store, the former creamery, now the Katz residence, and a single family home owned by Scott Dana. Bob Todd, LLS, further noted the location of a Town driveway to five Town owned parking spaces, the Town common and its gazebo and a sidewalk on the eastern side only of Route 13. He added that the Piscataquog River was 180 north of the site. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that there was some vegetation and minimal tree cover on the property but a wooded slope did contain some larger trees. He further noted that the site was one of the nicer landscaped properties in the village due to the efforts of Joan Haley and Mrs. Katz.
Bob Todd, LLS, noted the Commercial Zone loop in the village as bounded by Depot Street, Route 13 and High Street of which the site was a part. He added that all existing lots were less than 0.3 acres in size. Bob Todd, LLS, described the existing house as 3,300 s.f. and two stories with a seasonal screened porch and an existing driveway with two parking spaces. He noted the existing well with a 75 foot radius that crossed into neighboring properties. Bob Todd, LLS, noted the location of an existing septic system served the Dana and Katz properties and at one time, the existing house on the site by way of a leaching trench joined to a leach field. He noted that because the septic system did not work well the Haleys got a separate septic system approved in order to facilitate sale of the
property. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the sewer pipe ran through the property for more than 20 years and would continue to serve the Dana and Katz properties and was no longer perforated but solid and sleeved and could be serviced at each end of the site. He noted the topography to average between 6 and 8% slopes with coarse soils, a very deep water table and no restrictive layers. Bob Todd, LLS, further noted five additional parking spaces located off the property. He added that the entire site and village, for that matter, was in a flood prone elevation with a base flood elevation of 413.5 feet.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that two comments from the Planning Department were the inclusion of a note on the plan for the variance granted by the ZBA for parking setbacks and landscape buffer requirements. He noted that he had calculated the necessary tree density and would address this later in the presentation.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that Paragraph C of Section 320.4 in the Zoning Ordinance stipulated that a 15 foot wide landscape strip was required around the perimeter of the site at the front, side and rear, however, that requirement was precluded by the variance granted to allow parking within two feet of the property line. He added that the remainder of the property would be landscaped. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the existing building would convert from residential to professional office space where David Craig would utilize 681 s.f. of the ground floor for business with the remaining downstairs space serving accessory non office functions. He added that David Craig would have up to two employees with hours of operation being 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the upstairs office space equaled 370 s.f. and was limited to one employee and operating hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday. He added that required parking spaces were a minimum of eight and nine were provided which included spaces for three employees. He noted parking spaces #2 and #9 to be limited for employee use because of the maneuvering difficulties they presented. Bob Todd,LLS, pointed out the handicap parking space and the parking area’s two way entry and exit capability which would deter traffic backups on Route 13.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that snow storage was possible in an area noted on the plan five feet from the edge of pavement and seven feet from the property line, however, contracted snow removal would be used. He added that the waste generated would be mostly paper and contained inside until removed to the transfer station. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that David Craig would remove his business sign from its present location on Route 13 south and reset it on the site with its granite post and ground spot lighting. He added that a second sign was proposed on a decorative iron hanger attached to a corner post on the existing porch 18” by 25” in size. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that outside lighting was proposed for the exterior of the building to illuminate the parking area,
walkway and handicap ramp. He noted that David Craig was considering either a three foot wide wooden ramp with an 8% rise or a handicap lift to aid individuals in wheelchairs. Bob Todd, LLS, further noted that the existing driveway entrance had been approved by the NH DOT and allowed two way traffic into the lot which would be paved and striped for parking delineations. He noted that the pavement would increase the total impermeable surfaces of the area to 69%. The Chairman asked if the parking lot was currently paved. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was not and noted where the existing pavement ended. He noted that some construction was proposed on site, the grade of the site would be raised and an underground filtration system would satisfy the Stormwater Management Plan. The Chairman asked why paving was proposed. David Craig replied that it would facilitate easier snow removal. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the adjacent parking
areas to the site were paved. He noted the landscaping plan on sheet #2 of the plan where 8 shrubs were required and 10 would be provided. He noted that some existing plantings would need to be removed due to maintenance difficulties. Bob Todd, LLS, further noted the location of a large tree that leaned precariously towards the existing building and may need removal after discussion with Mr. Dana on whose property the tree was located. He added that three additional sugar maple trees were proposed to satisfy the landscape formula and the remainder would be foundation plantings. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the existing walkway was brick and would be extended around the house to service the parking areas and a new walkway was proposed to join an existing granite pathway that led to the stairs to access the second floor. He noted that the front entrance would service the offices on the first floor as it had for the previous residence.
Bob Todd, LLS, showed the detail of the Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plan which included a large three compartment tank with surface risers to parking lot grates. He explained that the first compartment inlet would collect sediments and require yearly maintenance. Bob Todd, LLS, added that the second compartment of the tank would collect greases and oils from the surface of the parking lot while the third compartment was an exit to the drainage system installed with perforated pipes and trenches below the pavement. He noted that this compartment was able to be monitored by risers to the surface of the pavement and sized to accept excess runoff in a 50 year frequency 24 hour rainfall. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that a slope noted on the plan would be fixed
with a 12” FiltrexTM filter socks and planted with ground junipers, along with four inches of top soil and seed to the edge of pavement. He noted that a temporary stabilized construction site pad was proposed to keep mud and soil runoff from the roadway.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he had submitted waiver requests for noting the height of buildings within 200 feet of the site on the plan. He added that the waivers requested for septic system approval and driveway permits were not relevant to the plan now as they had already been obtained. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that a waiver was also requested for construction drawings of the handicap ramps because the applicant was considering a wheelchair lift as an alternative proposal and the plan did offer the minimum widths and grading standards that related to handicap ramps. He added the final rationale for the waiver that projects such as this which were minor in scope were subsequently approved by the building inspector post construction. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he included
this waiver as an amendment to the formal written waiver request submitted for noted building heights.
Douglas Hill asked for clarification of the original septic on the site. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that the original septic system had a trench with a perforated pipe and two tank locations. He added that now a solid pipe and new septic system served the existing house, a wastewater alternative system by Harold Davis, which was considered a secondary treatment plant that re-circulated the waste with pumped oxygen and required a dispersal field of only 75 feet. Douglas Hill asked if a septic easement existed for the Dana and Katz properties. David Craig replied that the legal status of the original septic system servicing those properties was unknown and he had not wanted it to be a sticking point at the time of his property purchase. He added that he was
agreeable to the original system remaining where it was provided his back yard did not have to be dug out in order to service the system. David Craig noted that this was why the septic system’s perforated pipe was encased in a solid sleeve so that it could be removed if necessary. He added that he was unsure if a prescriptive easement existed for the septic system as mutual consent had been established between all parties involved. David Craig noted that a license to run septic across property lines differed from an easement by prescription, therefore, he felt he held the legal rights regarding how the septic issue would be handled going forward. He noted that Mr. Dana and Mr. Katz were aware that the original septic would need to be replaced. James Nordstrom stated that from the description given it sounded like the leach bed had failed for the original septic system. The Chairman noted that this issue did not affect the applicant’s
proposal. Douglas Hill noted that because all three current owners were in agreement a septic easement should be drawn up. David Craig replied that his property was no longer serviced by the septic system in question and the pipe was licensed to run across his site. He added that he was willing to let things remain as they were for now with the knowledge that Mr. Dana and Mr. Katz were working to resolve their septic issue. James Nordstrom clarified that David Craig was not willing to grant a permanent easement across his property for that septic system. David Craig replied that was correct and noted that he wanted to see the issue resolved. Douglas Hill asked if the two properties were capable of supporting their own septic
systems. David Craig replied that it appeared so.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waivers requested by Bob Todd, LLS, in his memo dated April 5, 2005, for heights of buildings within 200 feet of the site and subsequently amended by hand at tonight’s meeting to include a waiver request for construction drawings of handicap ramps. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Northern Sky Holdings by David Craig, Manager, NRSPR/Law Office and Professional Offices, Location, 5 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #18/8, Commercial “COM” District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked if the applicant was aware of the recommendations made by the Fire Department upon their review of the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, replied they were not. The Chairman noted that the Fire Department had suggested that a fire alarm system be connected to a remote monitoring service, several fire extinguishers be placed inside the building and a Knox Box to enable responders easy access to the building rather than by forced entry. Christine Quirk noted that if the applicant chose to install a Knox Box he would need to facilitate the purchase through the Fire Department.
The Chairman stated that a site walk on the property was warranted. David Craig asked if the site walk could be scheduled soon as he wished to employ contractors on the property to facilitate the planning and development process of the project and continue his law practice. The Chairman replied that such request were typical of every applicant. A site walk was scheduled for May 21, 2005, at 10:00 a.m.+/-.
David Craig asked the Chairman to explain how the application process evolved as he was unfamiliar with Planning Board procedures. The Chairman explained that a site walk would be held with members of the Board and its outcome discussed at the next available meeting. David Craig asked if this meant that he could not do anything until mid-June. The Chairman stated that the business could not operate until the plan was approved and the conditions met. James Nordstrom clarified that David Craig, as the owner of the property was entitled to rights upon his land and if he wanted to go out and dig a hole that was his right. David Craig stated that he wanted work begun on the parking area of the site as soon as possible. Douglas Hill asked if the applicant had secured
an approval State Highway Permit for the driveway. David Craig replied that he had and was only awaiting approval of the plan by the Planning Board. The Chairman noted that the Board’s concerns dealt with items on the outside of the property such as parking, landscaping, traffic flow and adequate shielding from neighbors.
Bob Todd, LLS, asked if the Board recorded Site Plans. The Chairman replied that they did not.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Northern Sky Holdings by
David Craig, Manager, NRSPR/Law Office and Professional Offices, Location, 5 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #18/8, Commercial “COM” District, to June 14, 2005, at 9:15 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
9. A copy of a fax received April 28, 2005, from Julie Dillon, to the New Boston Planning
Board, Re: Site Plan Amendment, 422 Riverdale Road, was distributed for the Board’s
review and discussion.
Julie and Matt Dillon were present in the audience. Julie Dillon stated that Mr. Lombard of Ideal Compost could provide a dump trailer for waste collection on her site. The Chairman asked how the applicant would load the dump trailer. Julie Dillon replied that it could be loaded by using a wheel barrow. Matt Dillon explained that the dump trailer resembled a dumpster but could be loaded by a wheel barrow through access doors and could be appropriately shielded. James Nordstrom asked if Mr. Lombard’s company removed the dump trailers once they were full. Julie Dillon replied that he did and would replace it with an empty one on whatever time schedule they required. The Chairman asked what the cost was for each pick up. Julie Dillon
replied that the cost was $75.00. Matt Dillon added that mileage fees were also involved. Christine Quirk thought this sounded like a very good idea. James Nordstrom noted that the amended location of the proposed dump trailer would be at the end of the barn in contrast to the paddock as noted on the original site plan. Julie Dillon clarified that the dump trailer would be located in what was originally labeled “private parking” on the initial site plan. The Coordinator asked what the floor of the area in which the dump trailer would be placed was made of. Julie Dillon replied that the floor was made of gravel. The Coordinator asked how often Julie Dillon thought the trailer would be emptied and asked if Mr. Lombard had any experience with the settling of materials and liquids that could cause seepage from the trailer bottom if it sat for a time. Julie Dillon thought she would need the trailer emptied every three to four
weeks and noted that seepage should not occur as it was a sealed unit which her submitted drawing did not illustrate.
Christine Quirk MOVED to accept the amendment of a dump trailer for the collection of
manure instead of a concrete lined bunker as previously approved to the site plan, for
Julie Dillon, Tax Map/Lot #3/72, Riverdale Road. Bob Furey seconded the motion and
it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman noted that when the applicants had completed all necessary work to their site they should inform the Board so that a compliance site walk could be held. Julie Dillon stated that they were awaiting the next dump trailer available through Mr. Lombard from the manufacturer.
Christine Quirk recused herself from the Board as her Miscellaneous Business item was up next.
8. A copy of a memorandum dated May 3, 2005, from Nic Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, to Planning Board Members, Re: Friendly Beaver Campground, Beaver Hut Café, Tax Map/Lot #7/11, Cochran Hill Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Board took a minute to peruse the above noted letter. Christine Quirk wished to review the history of the Friendly Beaver Campground in order to support some of the facts provided in her letter to the Board. Her sons, Wayne and Barry Charrest were also in attendance. She stated that the Friendly Beaver Campground was started by Charlie Martin who purchased the property in the late 1960’s or early 1970’s and built four buildings at that time, one of which was torn down in 2003 and replaced by a new bath house. She noted that two of the remaining buildings were residences and the last structure housed a store, restaurant, apartment, workshop and function hall. Christine Quirk added that during this time period Charlie Martin had served breakfast
and lunch to the public and invited the public onto his property for dances in the function hall. She noted that Charlie Martin died in the late 1970’s and the property was left to his two children, Pamela Bartlett and Geoff Martin who needed to sell it in order to pay the inheritance tax. Christine Quirk stated that the property was then divided in half and Tom Quirk purchased the portion that retained the campground on April 19,1979. She added that he also served breakfast and lunch but never officially advertised it to the public. Christine Quirk further added that the public continued to come for breakfast but their numbers slowly declined due to Charlie Martin’s absence. She noted that Tom Quirk felt he needed to focus more on campground preparations for his first summer season rather than meals, however, the kitchen remained in the third building throughout the years and breakfast and lunch was always available with the help of a
hired cook, Donald Bricket. Christine Quirk added that she first began camping at the campground in 1984. She noted that approvals for a new recreation hall with indoor pool and kitchen were secured in 1990, therefore, the kitchen in the old building was closed. Christine Quirk stated that her father then ran the new kitchen from 1990 to 2000 until he passed away at which time her son Barry Charrest took over the position which he still currently held. She noted that the campground store was open to the public in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s when they saw the Wildwood Campground do the same. Christine Quirk stated that in the 20 years the store had been opened to the public they had never experienced any conflicts. She explained that because the store was at the entrance on a Class VI road maintained by the campground the public did not need to drive through the campground to reach the store. Christine Quirk noted that sixth
grade classes from the New Boston Central School have had their graduation party on the campground property, free of charge, for the past fifteen years. She added that the property had three outdoor pools, an indoor pool, basketball court, playground and a kids’ recreation hall and was considered to be the largest facility in the Town to handle large parties of children. Christine Quirk added that Mike Sindoni, Director of the Recreation Department had discussed the possibility of swimming lessons, bingo and other activities to provide fundraisers for the Town’s new recreation building. She added that swimming lessons were supposed to be offered over the previous winter, however, a swimming instructor could not be secured.
Christine Quirk stated that as a business within a small Town, the Friendly Beaver Campground enjoyed helping and offering services to town people. She believed that even though the campground was located in an “R-A” District, the services in question were grandfathered in many years before Planning or Zoning Boards existed. Christine Quirk stated that the purpose of the Planning Board was to grant exceptions in usage otherwise only a Planning Coordinator would be needed as an enforcing agent. She asked the Board to consider the campground in a different aspect as already allowing the public onto their property as stated in the Site Review Agreement dated February 28, 1995, #2: “Any changes to occur will be submitted to the Planning Board and a
determination is made that a non-residential site plan review is or is not required for the alterations, expansions or changes of use”. Christine Quirk stated that Duke Winslow used to frequent the campground when it was owned by Charlie Martin and he had the name of the individual who served breakfast to him from the camp’s kitchen. She added that Duke Winslow confirmed that the public attended dances in the dance hall at that time also. Christine Quirk further added that she obtained a letter from Pamela Barlett who attested that food was served to the public at the time Charlie Martin owned the property. She noted that in order to get a Food Service License she needed to prove to the State that the campground’s water and septic utilities were capable of handling the appropriate loads and that the Coordinator should have a copy of the 1990 Site Plans which showed the new kitchen. She added that a permit was obtained in 2003 from the
Building Department, to expand the size of the kitchen which was not an issue.
Douglas Hill asked what Christine Quirk felt the main issues were in her case. Christine Quirk replied that being in a “R-A” District posed certain limitations as noted in the Zoning Ordinance, however, she felt the Planning Board was capable of recognizing and approving grandfathered status in this case. If not, she noted that she would be required to seek a variance from the ZBA. The Chairman stated that events occurring before 1989 could be reviewed for grandfathered status because the Zoning Regulations did not mandate regulations for campgrounds before that date. Christine Quirk stated that George St. John had planned to appear before the Board this evening to attest to the restaurant servicing the public before that time. She added that she
had obtained old septic approval numbers which proved the campground was existing in the early 1970’s. The Chairman did not see how a campground could exist without a store, etc., because it operated as a small city. The Coordinator noted that the main issue involved use by the public and not just campground residents. Douglas Hill asked if a day pass could be provided to members of the public for use of the facilities. The Chairman explained that as the owners of the campground the Quirks could do so, however, they sought to approach the issue on more legal terms of usage. Douglas Hill asked if the traffic generated by the public would cause substantial impacts. Christine Quirk replied that she did not anticipate large influxes of traffic as the campground’s facilities provided services to the public when there was a special need, for example, laundry services and later store hours than Dodge’s. Bob Furey noted that the
large overflow parking area at the campground could sustain a large influx of traffic and not cause congestion on through traffic to Town roads. The Chairman noted that the Quirks maintained the Class VI road themselves. Bob Furey was inclined to support the Quirks case but was not sure it should be based on precedents as the grandfathering of the food service appeared to be servicing campground residents and not the public. Christine Quirk stressed that the point of her argument was that although that appeared to be the case, it was not, and the public was being serviced all along in the campground’s earlier years. The Chairman stated that given that information this issue could be considered an expansion of grandfathered use. The Coordinator noted that non-conforming uses were not generally permitted to expand.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator what her suggestions would be. The Coordinator replied that she was responsible to relate information to the Board by a strict reading of the Zoning Ordinance and, relative to this case, public uses of accessory structures of a campground such as a retail store, kitchen, etc., were not permitted. The Chairman noted that the Town had been sending its sixth graders up to the campground due to the commercial limitations of the Town. Douglas Hill noted that Little People’s Depot served food to its students and that was building was located in a residential area. James Nordstrom noted that Little People’s Depot was not servicing the public and that was the main issue in the case of the campground. From the audience,
Sara Hogan asked why the public could not be allowed to go to the campground restaurant if they were allowed to go to the store. The Chairman noted that the pool was open for public use. The Coordinator explained that was allowed by revision of the original site plan review in 1995. She added that the question remained as to why that revision was allowed. Bob Furey noted that in the Planning Board minutes of 1995 the Chairman stated that the only concern the Board had was that the building was to be used by registered campers only due to parking considerations, therefore, parking for the public would have to be available. If there is or are available parking areas the consensus of the Board was that it did not require formal site plan review, just addendum. He added that it appeared the Board was in support of the campground building being open to the public and was only concerned about parking. Christine Quirk agreed. The Coordinator
noted that if uses of the property stayed the same and an expansion of a use that always existed was sought then the Board could require proof that a restaurant was open to the public at a prior time. The Chairman asked Christine Quirk to submit documents that would serve as such proof such as an old menu, pre 1990. Christine Quirk thought that the letters obtained by Duke Winslow and Pamela Bartlett should also serve as proof.
James Nordstrom noted that the cleanest solution to this issue would be for Christine Quirk to approach the ZBA for a variance for the usage. Christine Quirk noted that she was not sure she wanted to take that risk. James Nordstrom understood and offered that if the Board could obtain proof of the early existing restaurant on the campground and get past the expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use, the Board might be able to come up with a rational solution. Bob Furey asked if the campground district could be re-zoned as commercial. The Chairman noted that if that was done, the campground itself would be at risk because it could not be allowed in a commercial district. He asked about the content of Duke Winslow’s letter. Christine Quirk
replied that Duke Winslow stated in his letter that he frequented the campground restaurant many times in its earlier years and had the name and phone number of the woman who used to help in the kitchen.
Don Duhaime asked if the ZBA could still veto an approval by the Planning Board for this usage. James Nordstrom replied that the ultimate enforcement of the Zoning Regulations sat with the Building Inspector and that anyone could voice a complaint if they thought Regulations were being violated. He added that many decisions by Planning Boards throughout New Hampshire had been found after the fact to violate zoning. Douglas Hill noted that it was possible that the Planning Board of 1995 had done just that, yet this Board was trying to be consistent with that rendering going forward. Bob Furey suggested that an addendum could be added to the Site Plan Review agreement of 1995 stating what the new use of the building would be. The Coordinator thought that a
separate statement attached to the file worded appropriately to describe the issue would suffice. The Chairman clarified that this should be an accepted continued use and not a new use which would not be grandfathered. James Nordstrom noted that Christine Quirk needed to prove that the usage existed prior to 1989 in function and infrastructure. Bob Furey asked if a memo to the file would be acceptable. Douglas Hill thought that by citing the 1995 minutes of the Planning Board it could be noted that the parking issue was resolved and the applicants wished to open the restaurant to the public . The Chairman further clarified that the addendum statement could say that because parking capacity was expanded the applicants would like to openly advertise the restaurant services to the public.
Christine Quirk submitted copies of the original septic approvals of 1970-1971 from DES to the Coordinator for the plan file.
Bob Furey MOVED to extend the meeting to 11:55 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
4. Driveway Permit Application for Elsie Golding, Ridgeview Lane, Tax Map/Lot #11/58,
for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.
(drive by prior to meeting)
Christine Quirk stated that she had viewed the above noted driveway with Douglas Hill,
James Nordstrom, Don Duhaime and other Board members at the previous weekend’s site walk. She noted that she did not think the proposed driveway looked as steep as it did from the road once on she went on to the site. Douglas Hill noted that the proposed home would have a garage under the first floor and the driveway was probably at a 3 or 4% grade downhill because it followed the natural contours of the property. James Nordstrom agreed that once the driveway was 10 to 15 feet from the edge of the pavement it leveled out.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #05-011, Tax
Map/Lot #11/58, 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. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5. Driveway Permit Applications for Curtis Hill, LLC, Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot
#’s 10/3-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 for proposed driveways, for the Board’s approval.
(No Copies)
The Coordinator explained that the above noted driveways were viewed at the time of Curtis Hill, LLC’s, Subdivision Approval but were not signed off. Christine Quirk asked if this was the former Wildwood Campground property. The Chairman replied that it was.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #’s 04-066, 067, 068, and 069, Tax Map/Lot #’s 10/3-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8, for proposed driveways, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road; the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. Signature required for Site Review Agreement for New Boston Self Storage, LLC by
James and Claire Dodge, Tax Map/Lot #5/21-3, 175 Weare Road, by the Planning Board
Chairman.
The Chairman signed the above noted Site Review Agreement.
7. Endorsement of Subdivision Plan for David L. Lyons & Susan R. Charest-Lyons, Laurel
Lane, Tax Map/Lot #12/106, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Board postponed the endorsement of this item to the end of the meeting.
10. Discussion Re: Common Driveway for Daniel Donovan, 350 Bedford Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/63.
The Coordinator noted that this discussion involved Mr. Donovan’s proposal to use his residential driveway, Tax Map/Lot #9/61, as a driveway for his proposed medical facility on a backlot, Tax Map/Lot #9/63-1. The Chairman asked that Mr. Donovan be sent a letter from the Board stating that they had determined on a site walk that due to sight distance issues and the
proximity of the driveway to Wilson Hill Road, the driveway for Lot #9/61 could not be used for that purpose. The Chairman also asked that the letter include that the Planning Board thought a site plan should be required for the facility.
11. Daily road inspection report dated, March 23rd, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re; Highland
Hills, was distributed for the Board’s information.
12. The minutes of April 26, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of May 24, 2005, with or without changes.
13. Driveway Permit Application for Twin Bridge Land Management, Twin Bridge Road,
Tax Map/Lot #6/62, for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action. (drive by prior to
meeting)
Christine Quirk, James Nordstrom and Bob Furey stated that they had viewed the above noted driveway. James Nordstrom stated that he was confused by the number of stakes in place. Christine Quirk assumed the viewing area was at a point where two sets of stakes were placed 25 feet apart from each other. James Nordstrom noted that he did not see the Driveway Permit Application until after he viewed the site but thought it seemed to be a good location for a driveway. Christine Quirk agreed. James Nordstrom clarified that the proposed driveway was located 75 feet from an existing cistern.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #05-016, Tax
Map/Lot #6/62, 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. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
14. A copy of a fax received May 10, 2005, from Earney Mayo, Golden Oak Developers, LLC, to the Planning Department, Re; guardrails, Indian Falls Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that guardrails had not yet been installed on Indian Falls Road, however, the CO’s for some of the lots had been issued in error. She added that the developer now wanted additional CO’s and was willing to install large boulders or some other preferred temporary measure to gain them. Additionally, the Coordinator explained that a third party had purchased Lot #14 and that party wanted a temporary CO because he could not install the guardrails. She noted that Golden Oak Developers were particularly concerned with obtaining a CO for Lot #4 as it was scheduled to close at the end of this week. The Chairman did
not think the CO’s should be issued just as they had not been for Thibeault Corporation until the guardrails were installed on their site. James Nordstrom noted that three CO’s had already been issued to Golden Oaks. The Chairman did not think that the Building Department’s error should be expanded upon by issuing the CO’s now requested. The Planning Assistant clarified that it was a Planning Department error. The Chairman stated that because Golden Oaks was responsible for installing the guardrails on Indian Falls Road he did not want to issue them CO’s. In the case of the third party who purchased Lot #14, he noted that a CO could be issued to that individual if the were willing to sign a document releasing the Town of liability in the event that the absence of the guardrail
in that location caused an accident. The Chairman added that he was still uncomfortable with that option because the guardrails were required on Indian Falls Road for safety purposes. James Nordstrom noted that the Board had not required the guardrails and that they were part of the applicant’s plan design. Douglas Hill noted that Golden Oaks had offered to install temporary boulders until the guardrails were installed. He added that guardrail installation schedules often experienced delays. James Nordstrom was surprised that this developer was able to get three CO’s before guardrails were installed. Don Duhaime noted that this was the same developer who poured a foundation and footings on Lot #13 before securing a Building Permit.
The Planning Assistant noted that the CO’s were released unintentionally without the knowledge that guardrails had not been installed. Douglas Hill thought that boulders should be temporarily placed for the safety of the owners of the three occupied lots until the guardrails could be installed. The Chairman stated that Golden Oak Developers should be notified that they were to install temporary rock boulders in place until the guardrails were in at which time the CO’s would be released. James Nordstrom asked what the Board’s response should be if the developer asked why they got CO’s previously and were being denied now. The Chairman replied that the developer could be informed that the Board did not wish to compound the error that had
occurred.
15. Compliance approval for driveway permit applications for Indian Falls, LLC, Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/89-4 & 12, for the Board’s action. (No Copies)
Don Duhaime stated that Lot #12/89-12 was an issue and the design would need to be redone. He added that in speaking with James Nordstrom earlier they agreed that with some regrading, Lot #12/89-4 might be salvageable. James Nordstrom clarified that at present neither driveway met the requirements of the Board and while Lot #12/89-4 had the potential to comply,
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
Lot #12/89-12 did not. Don Duhaime stated that Lot #12/89-12 had a positive slope off the roadway and continued steeply up the property. James Nordstrom noted that this was the lot that the applicants had discussed with the Road Agent due to the existing shallow depths that existed on the property for utilities which was one of the reasons he signed off on the driveway. Don Duhaime thought that the site contractor should become involved. The Chairman suggested that this driveway could be reviewed when the Board was doing its next round of site walks. The Planning Assistant commented that CO’s for the two lots could not yet be obtained if the Board was not satisfied with the driveway design. The Coordinator noted that CO’s actually could be obtained because the Road Agent had signed off on
the driveways. Don Duhaime note that the home on Lot #12/89-12 was nowhere near completion. The Chairman asked if the driveway apron for Lot #12/89-12 was installed. Don Duhaime replied that it was. He added that at one point a mound of gravel was piled at the base of Lot #12’s driveway and was washing into the roadway. The Chairman thought the Planning Board should view this driveway and referenced the previous problem created by the former Road Agent on the Bedford Road cluster of homes.
James Nordstrom asked the Coordinator what the Planning Board's role was specified as regarding Driveway Permit Applications. The Coordinator replied that the Board’s main role in Driveway Permit Applications was land use issues which should be noted in the Driveway Regulations that were currently being reviewed by Town Counsel. James Nordstrom clarified that slope, grade, drainage and sight distance were not items that the Planning Board was required to address. The Coordinator noted that the current Road Agent had previously requested that the Planning Board give their input on those items which differed from the opinion of the previous Road Agent. The Chairman stated that the Board should look at proposed driveways to assure that there was no potential for
damage to the roadway it entered from. He added that if a proposed driveway was flat that was acceptable, a positive grade would be scrutinized and a grade approaching the maximum 10% allowed would warrant an engineer review.
16. Discussion, Re: Section IX-B, 10 – as-built plans and Certificate of Occupancy.
The Coordinator noted that the above Section required submission of as-built plans prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. She stated that this was so that if the road location had moved during construction, it was easier to fix than if someone already lived on the property and might be resistant to granting lot line changes. The Coordinator noted that this requirement was not being enforced but would be from now on and she wanted the Planning Board to know this in case there were any problems with developers because of it.
17. Discussion, Re: Issuance of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, Indian Falls Road, Tax
Map/Lot #12/89-14.
The above noted discussion was addressed in item #14.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
18. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing in May 11, 2005, from the Town of Deerfield, Re:
installation of wireless communication facility.
19. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing on May 18, 2005, from the City of Concord Planning Board,
Re: installation of a wireless communication facility.
7. Endorsement of Subdivision Plan for David L. Lyons & Susan R. Charest-Lyons, Laurel
Lane, Tax Map/Lot #12/106, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Vice-Chairman (in the absence of the Secretary) endorsed the above
noted Subdivision Plan.
At 12:00 a.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Christine Quirk seconded the
motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien,
Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
| 
