Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 06/14/2005
The meeting was called to order at 6:50 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan.  Present were regular member, 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, Bill Weston, Brandy Mitroff, Roger Dignard, Willard Dodge, Roch Larochelle, Michael Boyle, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Brent Armstrong, John Greenwood, Frank Fillmore, Bob Todd, LLS, David Craig, Scott Dana, Morgan Hollis, Esq., Hans Hassel and Robert Baskerville, PE.

Discussion with Bill Weston, Chairman of the Steep Slopes Committee, re: Steep Slopes Ordinance

                Bill Weston stated that the Steep Slopes Committee was making progress and had one question to pose to the Board.  He explained that the original charter of the Committee was to explore the creation of an amendment or expand upon an amendment to the Steep Slopes Ordinance that passed the Town vote in March, 2005, and address certain concerns that arose as a result of that passing.  He added that recently an idea of not having the Steep Slopes Ordinance tied into Zoning had been raised and instead language could be added to the Subdivision Regulations and Site Plan Regulations that would give the Planning Board more control over the specifics of each plan regarding steep slopes.  Bill Weston noted that the Zoning Board had already seen increased activity concerning landowner issues and did not want to deal with this going forward.  He asked if any particular reason existed regarding why the Board thought that Steep Slopes should remain within the Zoning Ordinance as removing it would be a major change.  The Chairman replied that if a plan’s steep slopes qualifications became waivable by the Planning Board he would still want some type of binding language that could be upheld to developers who attempted to dodge the criteria because it was not specifically in the Regulations.  He added that he would be in favor of having the Steep Slopes Ordinance taken out of Zoning. Brandy Mitroff of the Steep Slopes Committee noted that even with the strict guidelines of the Ordinance there were inconsistencies to consider such as a landowner with a 45% slope that had less than 20 feet in elevation change and was, therefore, exempted from the ordinance.  She added that Earl Sandford of Sandford Survey and Engineering had suggested that steep slopes criteria be included in engineering specifications similar to road specifications where construction within the 15-25% slope area would need to meet certain engineering criteria, hence, giving the Board more discretion over unique slope situations on plans.  
        The Chairman stated that he would be agreeable to having the Steep Slopes Ordinance removed from Zoning because the ZBA did not seem to be interested in becoming educated regarding the criteria that the Ordinance employed.  He asked Bill Weston how he thought steep slopes could be removed from Zoning.  Bill Weston suggested that the overlay district would be defined within the Zoning Regulations along with a general map and all the language about what was and was not acceptable within the district would be in the Subdivision and Site Plan Regulations.  The Chairman asked how this could be accomplished administratively.  Bill Weston replied that the Board could adopt the regulations to be effective for land within the Steep Slopes District while an amendment to Article 3 of the Zoning Ordinance was drafted.  
        The Chairman stated that it now appeared that there was a clearer picture of what loop holes were presented by the Steep Slopes Ordinance and how that could be addressed.  He thought that Bill Weston’s suggestions were good ones.  Bill Weston noted that his one concern with such an alteration was that this solution would not be permanent going forward with future Planning Boards.  Douglas Hill agreed that the Steep Slopes Overlay District could be removed from Zoning as its main intent dealt with erosion control and with the change suggested landowners would have the opportunity to present their case while the Board would hold the discretion.
        Brandy Mitroff asked that the Board consider how enforcement of Steep Slopes be handled.  Bill Weston explained that the Committee would be presenting a set of enforcement recommendations to the Board in the future and would like their input.  The Chairman asked who would be the enforcers regarding Steep Slopes.  Bill Weston thought that use would possibly be made of the Town’s consulting engineers but further discussion was needed.
        The Chairman asked if the recent Steep Slopes site walk was helpful to the Committee.  Bill Weston replied that it was very helpful and that Earl Sandford had put considerable time into preparations for the site walk along with the cooperation of many landowners who allowed them onto their property.  He added that he felt the site walk brought both sides of the table to some common ground of understanding regarding the viable issues of steep slopes.  The Chairman asked if there was any validity to the argument regarding the area of theoretically buildable land disallowed by the Steep Slopes Ordinance.  Bill Weston replied that two areas became notably limited by the Ordinance.  He noted the first issue to be the building stipulation for 1.5 acres of contiguous flatland on a lot combined with the uncertainty of whether building would be allowed on portions of the same lot that were in the 15% to 25% slope range.  Bill Weston added that a good example of the latter issue was discovered on the Dodge Farm.  Secondly, he noted that a situation where a 22 foot high esker ran through the middle of a lot with flatland surrounding it would not be buildable according to the Ordinance.  Brandy Mitroff added that these examples likened the Ordinance to a growth ordinance because it limited the subdivision of lots where without such an Ordinance more lots would be netted.  Bill Weston summarized that the Committee was currently working through five areas of disagreement that had been established between the pro and con sides of the current criteria for steep slopes.  He added that the aforementioned conflict between 1.5 acres of contiguous flatland versus 15-25% being buildable or not was at the top of the list.  
        Douglas Hill asked if any discussion had occurred on the Committee regarding the range of 25% and greater being non buildable and whether that percentage was too stringent.  Bill Weston replied that there had been discussion but no agreement yet between the two sides.  Brandy Mitroff thought that the 15-25% criteria range was applicable for 2 acre lots but not within the 1.5 contiguous flat portion, therefore, removing the latter would considerably loosen that criteria.  She noted that all Board members were welcome to attend Committee meetings.
                
        The Chairman appointed Don Duhaime and Douglas Hill as voting members of the Board for the evening’s hearings.  

DIGNARD, ROGER  
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Architectural Home Office
Location: 146 South Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #13/50
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was the applicant, Roger Dignard.  No abutters or interested parties were present.
                Roger Dignard stated that he proposed to relocate his existing home business originally established in 1997 at his Joe English Road residence to his new residence on 146 South Hill Road.  He noted that while product representatives and engineers occasionally came to his home office his home business did not generate significant traffic to his residence because clients were generally serviced off site.  Roger Dignard added that he believed that his proposal satisfied the requirements of Non-Residential Site Plan Review as the business would be located in a small structure that would be similar in character to surrounding residential structures.  He noted that he hoped the Board would consider some flexibility regarding parking spaces on the site.
        The Board reviewed the plan.  The Chairman asked Roger Dignard if the hours of operation for the home business were included on the plan.  Roger Dignard replied that he would like to amend his plan to include the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday which would give him some additional flexibility around the standard hours of operation of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.  The Chairman asked Roger Dignard how many employees would be working at the office.  Roger Dignard replied that two employees would be working for him.  The Chairman asked if these employees would be non-family members.  Roger Dignard replied that was correct.  The Chairman asked the Coordinator if this would present an issue for the plan.  The Coordinator replied that this would be an issue in the case of a minor site plan for which one employee was allowed as two employees would classify the site plan as major according to the Site Plan Regulations.  She added that the applicant could request a waiver to the major site plan status.  Douglas Hill asked if the Ordinance assumed that two non-family employees were in addition to two family employees.  The Chairman replied that was not the case.  He explained to the applicant that if he wished to accommodate two non-resident employees he would need to file under major site plan status or verbally request a waiver to remain a minor and provide a written follow-up request to the Board.  Roger Dignard requested that his plan be classified as a minor site plan due to the proposal for two non-resident employees for his home business.

        Bob Furey MOVED to accept the waiver request to treat Roger Dignard’s Non-Residential Site Plan as a minor site plan.  Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.   

        Douglas Hill asked if new construction was proposed for the home business.  Roger Dignard replied that it was.  Douglas Hill asked if Roger Dignard had reviewed the comments provided by the Fire Department regarding his site plan.  Roger Dignard replied that he had not.  Douglas Hill went on to review these comments and noted that the Fire Department requested that there be a barrier between the home office and the residence in the form of a two hour fire rating including doors, door frames and walls.  Roger Dignard commented that the Fire Department’s request was substantial and asked what rationale the Fire Department based this request upon.  Douglas Hill replied that he could not speak for the Fire Department but assumed their request dealt with a preference for a fire to remain self contained within the office structure rather than spread to the main residence.  He added that the Fire Department also mentioned in their comment letter that it was preferred that interior doors were not more than 32 inches wide, smoke detectors were interconnected and located in accordance with NFPA standards and fire extinguishers be on all floors of the structure.  Roger Dignard noted that he currently had interconnecting smoke alarm system at his South Hill Residence and would discuss the fire rating with the Fire Department.  The Chairman asked Roger Dignard if he intended to install sprinklers in his proposed home business structure and that they would most likely be less expensive than a two hour fire wall.  Roger Dignard replied that he did not and added that a fire sprinkler system for his 1,500 s.f. home and 1,000 s.f. office had been estimated at $4K.  Douglas Hill suggested that because the home business portion of the residence would be new construction the applicant could install fire sprinklers in just that portion.  Roger Dignard replied that the construction project was already significantly underway.
        Bob Furey stated that the plan seemed to indicate that the business sign was located beyond the site’s setback line which could require a permit.  The Coordinator noted that only on site advertisement of the business with a sign would require such a permit.  Roger Dignard clarified that the sign on the plan was not intended for advertising the business but, rather, to direct visitors to the office door.  He added that he might also consider placing his business logo on his mailbox but reiterated that business related visitors were rare and when they did come by it was usually to deliver something.  Bob Furey suggested that the applicant include a note on the plan that any signage on the site would not be for advertising purposes.
        Roger Dignard asked if his formal waiver request should be hand written and submitted this evening or typed and submitted later.  The Chairman replied that a typed letter was fine.  He then asked the Board if they felt that a site walk was warranted for this plan.  Douglas Hill replied that because the Building Inspector would be approving the construction of the proposed home business and no exterior alterations were proposed he did not think a site walk with members of the Board was necessary.  The Chairman added that he was indifferent to doing a site walk given the nature of the application.  Bob Furey noted that the Fire Department should have ample time allotted in which to respond to the applicant’s questions regarding their requests.  Roger Dignard noted that he had also contacted all abutters regarding his application.

        Bob Furey MOVED to accept the application of Roger Dignard, NRSPR, Architectural Home Office, Location: South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot # 13/50, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED  unanimously.

        Bob Furey MOVED to adjourn the application of Roger Dignard, NRSPR, Architectural       Home Office, Location: South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot # 13/50, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to July 12, 2005, at 9:00 p.m.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and   it PASSED unanimously.

BOYLE, MICHAEL J. & JANIE A.    Adjourned from 04/26/05
Public Hearing/Lot Line Adjustment & Major Subdivision/4 Lots
Location: 45 Barss Drive & Joe English Road
Tax Map/Lot #14/56-7 & 58
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

                The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, of Sandford Survey and Engineering and the applicant, Michael Boyle.  No abutters or interested parties were present.
        Earl Sanford, LLS, PE, stated that the applicant proposed to subdivide four lots from two including a minor lot line adjustment to Lot #14/56-7.  He noted that the recently held site walk had confirmed that the plan conformed to the Subdivision Regulations and addressed the issue of flexibility for proposed driveway curb cuts.  The Chairman asked members of the Board if they had any issues with the site walk.  Douglas Hill and Christine Quirk commented that they had no issues.  
        The Coordinator noted that the erosion control measures on the plan should be discussed.  The Chairman stated that the site appeared to be flat.  Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted the gray shaded area on sheet #1 of the plan set to be somewhat steep and straddled Lot #’s 56-7 and 58-2, however, more than two acres of contiguous flatland was still available.  He added that 2.06 acres of Lot #58-2’s 5 acres was also flat.  Bob Furey inquired about the two wetland pockets noted on the plan that appeared to travel southward under the proposed driveway.  Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the proposed driveway had been designed to prevent impacts to the wetlands and that the erosion control plan detailed the provision for silt fencing.  Bob Furey asked if culverts would be proposed.  Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that no culverts were needed.
        Douglas Hill asked if the existing road noted on the plan was now a proposed driveway for one of the lots.  Michael Boyle replied that the road in question was an old skidder road and that at the time of the site walk the Board had walked between the center of the proposed driveways to the backlots.
        The Chairman asked the Board if they had any other concerns regarding the plan and they did not.  He asked if any comments had been forwarded by the Fire Department.  The Coordinator replied that no comments were submitted and that by this point in the application it could be assumed that none were forthcoming.  Douglas Hill asked if the homes built on the proposed lots would be installed with fire sprinklers.  Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that because less than five lots were proposed sprinklers were not a requirement.  Mike Boyle added it had also been determined that the site was also within the acceptable distance of an existing cistern.
        Bob Furey asked if waivers to studies required by the Subdivision Regulations had been addressed.  The Chairman replied that these waivers were accepted at the previous meeting with the applicant on April 25, 2005.

        Bob Furey MOVED to approve the Lot Line Adjustment and Major Subdivision/4 Lots, Land of Michael J. Boyle, Corporation and Michael J. and Janie A. Boyle, Tax Map/Lot #14/56-7 & 14/58, Joe English Road and Barss Drive, subject to:

                CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
                1.      Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,  
              including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
                2.  Submission of 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.
                The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be July 31, 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.
                Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.    

        Bob Furey MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #’s 05-044, 05-043 and 05-042 for, Tax Map/Lot #’s 14/58-3, 2 & 1, for proposed driveways, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: 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.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 14, 2005

1.              Approval of minutes of May 10, 2005, with or without changes. (Distributed at the May 24, 2005, meeting.)

        Bob Furey MOVED to approve the minutes of May 10, 2005, as written.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

2.      The minutes of May 24, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of June 28,   2005, with or without changes.


3.      Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-4,      Popple Road, for Planning Board approval. (No Copies)   

                See item #5

4.              Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-23, Swanson Road, for Planning Board approval. (No Copies)

        See item #5     

5.              Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-17, Swanson Road, for Planning Board approval. (Drive by prior to meeting)

        Don Duhaime stated that the driveways for Lot #’s 6/32-4 & 32-23 seemed satisfactory, however, he thought that the driveway for Lot #6/32-17 seemed steep.  The Chairman stated that as-built plans or a certification that the driveways were built to specifications could be requested for Lot #6/32-17’s driveway.  The Coordinator noted that engineered plans had been submitted for the driveways of Lot #6/32-4 and 32-23.  The Board then reviewed the engineered plans.  The Chairman asked if any revisions had been made to the plans regarding the driveway construction.  The Coordinator replied that there had been a question regarding a cross section that did not correlate with the Driveway Regulations at a -5% entrance grade versus -3% for Lot #6/32-23.  Don Duhaime felt that an engineered plan should also be provided for Lot #6/32-17.  Bob Furey stated that he had not viewed this driveway but thought that the apron seemed satisfactory upon viewing the design on the Driveway Permit Application.

        Bob Furey MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #’s 05-012, 05-013 and 05-038 for, Tax Map/Lot #’s 6/32-4, 23 &17, 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.  As part of the approval it is stipulated that the above noted driveways will need to be certified for compliance by the engineer who designed the plan.  Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        Douglas Hill recused himself as he was professionally involved with the company that was involved in the next item.

6.      Driveway Permit Application for Thibeault Corp. of N.E., Tax Map/Lot #’s 6/41-1-10, Byam Road, for Planning Board approval. (Drive by prior to meeting) 
        
Don Duhaime stated that it appeared that the driveways for Lot #’s 6/41-1, 2 and 3 were marked while 7-10 were not.  The Coordinator noted that these driveways were proposed on the right hand side of Byam Road just after the entrance and had been a part of an application presented to the Board in 1998 but were removed from that plan due to their steep accesses.  She added that with the reactivation of their proposals she had informed Brian Holt of Thibeault Corporation that the Board would most likely want to site walk this area and select the lots for which they would require engineered plans.  A site walk was scheduled for June 21, 2005, at 6:30 p.m.

7.              Driveway Permit Application for Kenneth Duchesne, Tax Map/Lot #2/1, 343 Tucker Mill Road, for Planning Board approval. (Drive by prior to meeting)

        Because no members from the Board had been able to view the above noted driveway it was agreed that this item would be addressed at the next scheduled meeting.

8.      Driveway Permit Application for Donald Desruisseau, Tax Map/Lot #10/74 & 10/74-1, Lyndeborough Road, for Planning Board approval. (Drive by prior to meeting)

        Douglas Hill stated that he had viewed the area and saw no issues.  The Coordinator noted to the other Board members that the newer lot, Lot #10/74-1, was located close to the bridge on Lyndeborough Road.  She added that it was not typical that the Board would approve a Driveway Permit before the lot was subdivided.  The Chairman asked if a Driveway Permit was ever approved for Lot #10/74.  The Coordinator replied that it was not because this was a very old lot.      

        Bob Furey MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application # 05-040, for, Tax Map/Lot # 10/74 for a 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.
                
9.      A copy of a letter received May 26, 2005, from Stephanie Ridley and Benjamin Strauss, to the Planning Board, Re: Wetland Crossing Status, Tax Map/Lot #5/38, Beard Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

        The Planning Assistant stated that she had e-mailed Bob Furey and James Nordstrom about viewing the above noted wetland crossing.  The Coordinator noted that at least two Board members would need to view the crossing in order for it to be discussed at the next meeting.

10.     A copy of a letter/memorandum received May 31, 2005, from Rene LaBranche, Office Leader-Associate, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, Re: Wilson Hill-Bedford Road intersections, was distributed for the Board’s information.

11.     A copy of a letter received May 31, 2005, from H. Harro Hassel, to the New Boston Planning Board, Re: Observations of former Planning Board Member, was distributed for the Board’s information.        

        The Coordinator asked the Board if she should acknowledge the above noted letter with a response.  Bob Furey thought that the Board’s receipt of the letter should be acknowledged.  He added that he did not agree or disagree with the comments written in the letter.  Willard Dodge requested a copy of the letter as he assumed it was considered a public document.  The Chairman thought that the appropriate response to the letter was no response and that while the first statement within the letter was a fact the remaining portion was questionable.  The Board agreed that no response was warranted.

12.     Daily road inspection reports dated, April 4th, 5th, 7th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 27th and 29th, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Highland Hills, were distributed for the Board’s information.

13.     Daily road inspection reports dated, April 4th, 20th and 27th, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,       Re: Indian Falls, were distributed for the Board’s information.

14.     Read File: Memorandum received June 3, 2005, from SNHPC, Re: SNHPC Special Forum Meeting (New Hampshire’s Changing Landscape).

15.     Read File: Memorandum received June 6, 2005, from David Preece, SNHPC, Re:      Regional Roundtable Meeting.

16.             Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-24, Swanson Road, for Planning Board approval. (No Copies)      

        John Greenwood of R.J. Moreau Communities was present in the audience.  The Chairman informed him that the plans had been submitted for this driveway too late by the Board’s Rules of Procedure for action at this meeting.  John Greenwood stated that he had been told if he got the plans to the office by the previous Friday the permit would be acted upon.  The Chairman stated that unfortunately that was not the Board’s policy, practice or procedure and this permit would be dealt with at the next meeting.  He informed John Greenwood that the other driveway permits had been previously approved this evening.  


FILLMORE, FRANKLIN & DOROTHY    Adjourned from 5/10/05
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 Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, and the applicant, Frank Fillmore.  No abutters or interested parties were present.
        Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, reviewed the history of the application by stating that the applicants’ plan had been submitted but not accepted before the posting of the Steep Slopes Ordinance draft which resulted in their option to await the Town vote in March, 2005, before proceeding.  He added that with the subsequent adoption of the Steep Slopes Ordinance the applicants were attempting to comply with its criteria by reconfiguring Lot #14/36-1 to obtain the required 1.5 acres of contiguous flatland.  Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that the dashed lines on the plan illustrated slopes less than 15% and that while some areas with steep slope potential were marked the Lot still had 2.2 acres of buildable flat area.  He further noted that by making a slight lot line adjustment to Lot #14/36-1 which would still be five acres in size, Lot #14/36 would still retain ownership of the existing driveway on the site.  He added that test pits had been dug on Lot #14/36-1 and that it would be feasible to construct a driveway through the flat portion of this lot so that a CUP was avoided.  
        The Chairman asked how the Lot #14/36-1 was successfully reconfigured.  Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it had been possible to move the building location of the house without compromising its proposed driveway.  He noted that the original house site would have enabled a walk out basement, however, the site was effectively relocated so that criteria called out by the Steep Slopes Ordinance could be satisfied.  The Chairman asked if Lot #14/36 would remain unchanged by this reconfiguration.  Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it would and that the slopes slightly less than 15% on that Lot were noted on the plan also.

        Douglas Hill MOVED to accept the waiver for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        Douglas Hill asked if the grade of the proposed driveway was flat.  Earl Sandford, LLS, replied that it was at approximately 6%.

        Christine Quirk MOVED to accept 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, as complete.  Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.  

Bob Furey MOVED to approve the Lot Line Adjustment and Subdivision Plan of Land of Franklin & Dorothy Fillmore, on Jessica Lane, such that Parcel A of 0.279 acres is annexed from Tax Map/Lot #14/36-1 to Tax Map/Lot #14/36 and the resulting acreage is divided into two lots, subject to:

                CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
        1.      Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
        2.   Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
        3.   Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD (if necessary.)        
        4.   Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD             (if necessary.)
        5.   Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for                              recording at the HCRD.  
                The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be July 31, 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.
                Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.    

        Bob Furey MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Applications #04-100, 04-101 & 04-102, Tax Map/Lot #14/36 and 14/36-1 and 14/36-10, 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.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

17.     A copy of a letter dated June 10, 2005, from Morgan Hollis, to the Board, Re: Seff Enterprises & Holdings, LLC’s extension request, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

        The Chairman asked if the outstanding fees had been paid.  The Coordinator replied that they had been.  The Chairman saw no issues with approving an extension.

        Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the CUP and conditions subsequent for Seff Enterprises & Holdings, LLC, to November 30, 2005.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

18.     A copy of a letter dated June 8, 2005, from Earney Mayo, Golden Oak Developers, LLC, to the Board, Re: bond reduction request, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

        The Coordinator asked the Board if this letter could be forwarded to Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s, review to assure that all items had been completed on the road construction for Indian Falls.  Don Duhaime stated that he questioned whether the guardrail for Indian Falls Road had been properly installed as it appeared higher in the front than in the rear.  The Chairman thought that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., would catch this item but that the Board should make a note of it in case they did not.

19.     Daily road inspection reports dated May 12, 2005, from Dufresne-henry, Inc., Re: Indian Falls, were distributed for the Board’s information.

20.     Read File: Public Notice from the Town of Bedford for June 21, 2005, Re: wireless communications tower, 77 Chubbuck Road.

21.     The Coordinator stated that Mr. Philippy had submitted a Site Plan in order to erect a  sign for his plumbing business on his property.  She added that the DOT had notified him that he could not install his sign where proposed because that area was within the right-of-way.  The Coordinator asked how this issue should now be handled and whether Mr. Phillipy should withdraw his site plan.  The Chairman thought that Mr. Phillipy could amend his plan to illustrate another location for his sign that was acceptable.

22.     The Coordinator stated that the next item concerned the revocation process for the AT & T (now Cingular) cell tower proposed for the Town Hall.  She explained that because State law dealt with revocations for recorded site plans Town Counsel had suggested that the Town record plans going forward.  She added that a notice of the revocation hearing should be posted and the Board could then hold a hearing or an abutter could request a hearing 30 days for the receipt of the notices that would be sent to all parties involved which made the earliest time frame July of 2005.  The Chairman asked that a hearing be scheduled and AT&T (Cingular) be notified.  The Coordinator explained that all parties involved would receive a notice anyway.  Douglas Hill asked what the ramifications would be if nothing were done about this issue.  The Coordinator replied that the conditions precedent did not expire on their own and it would be irresponsible to let an item such as this stay on the books in the event that regulations changed in the future which could allow something to obtain grandfathered status.  

At 9:30 p.m. the Planning Board took a 15 minute break.



WILLARD, JONATHAN & JESSICA     Adjourned from 5/24/05
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.  He stated that this hearing had been postponed to July 12, 2005, at the request of the applicant.

SEFF ENTERPRISES & HOLDINGS, LLC        Adjourned from 5/10/05
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 were Robert Baskerville, PE, Morgan Hollis, Esq., and Hans Hassel.  No abutters or interested parties were present.  
                Robert Baskerville, PE, stated that the application had been accepted as complete at the last meeting along with waivers being granted by the Board.  He added that a question raised on the site walk of May 21, 2005, was a soil description in the location of a wetland finger on the site.  Robert Baskerville, PE, noted that Peter Schauer was asked to submit a soil description for that area and it was determined that the soils were not poorly drained.  He added that the location between the property on Lot #8/84-30-1 and the staked wetland was also not considered part of the jurisdictional wetland area.  The Chairman asked where the auger holes were drilled on the site in question.  Robert Baskerville, PE, replied that he had never had a wetland scientist submit detail of the location of auger holes but was confident of his findings which were that the wetland finger discussed was located between the proposed driveway for Lot #8/84-30-1 and the jurisdictional wetland.  Robert Baskerville, PE, stated that a note was on the plan stating that all homes built on the proposed lots would be installed with sprinkler systems.
                The Chairman asked how this proposed lot would have the required frontage if Foxberry Drive was never completed with a final coat of binder and thus was not accepted by the Town as a Class V road.  He replied to his own question by stating that bonding the road assured that it would become a Class V roadway.  Morgan Hollis, Esq., noted that the bonded amount was approximately $400K.
                The Chairman stated that he had previously questioned how Lot #8/84-30-1 qualified as a backlot, however, once he viewed it on the site walk he was satisfied with its classification.  He added that he still wondered how the applicant believed they could bridge the wetland or stream on Lot #8/84-30-1 noted on the plan without the consent or knowledge of NHDES.  Robert Baskerville, PE, replied that NHDES had no buffer requirements as long as the flagged wetlands
on a site were not disturbed.  He added that they could certainly forward the plans to NHDES if the Board preferred but were confident that the length of the span proposed would serve the purpose.  Robert Baskerville, PE, further added that such spans had been used before in many other towns they had worked with.  The Chairman stated that the proposed bridge appeared to be in a wet area and although it was not a jurisdictional wetland area, he wondered how the potential lot owner would maintain it.  Robert Baskerville, PE, replied that this area was wet because of skidder trails and would be properly flagged by the contractor who would most likely have some of the top soils removed and modified with structural fill.  He added that there was ample flow under the bridge to accommodate an existing spring.  Bob Furey asked the length of the proposed span.  Robert Baskerville, PE, replied that he believed it would be a standard length of 24 feet which would allow ample room to build footings outside of the wetlands.  Bob Furey asked if details of the bridge construction and coinciding silt fencing were included in the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.  Robert Baskerville, PE, replied that silt fencing was proposed in between and on either side of the span to the edge of the wetlands.  He noted that the erosion control plan for this application was updated from the prior development phase.  Don Duhaime asked what loads the bridge could support.  Robert Baskerville, PE, replied that the bridge accepted the same load as a typical HS20 highway and were cast identically for roads and driveways with the only difference being in the widths.  Bob Furey noted that the plan should state that load type for purposes of accommodating fire apparatus.
                The Chairman asked the turning radius of the proposed driveway after the bridged section as this would be a factor in the Driveway Permit Application.  Robert Baskerville, PE, replied that the outside radius appeared to be 50 feet which was the measure used for the outside edges of cul-de-sacs.  The Chairman asked the Coordinator if that radius met the requirements of the Driveway Regulations.  The Coordinator replied that it did.  Christine Quirk stated that on the first plan submitted to the Board it appeared that a wetland area went across the lot on which the span was proposed.  She asked how the applicant proposed to construct the other side of the bridge without impacting that wetland.  Robert Baskerville, PE, thought that it would be possible to cross through an adjoining lot or that the excavator arm could reach the construction area without crossing through the wetland on the lot.  Christine Quirk thought that the excavator reaching the appropriate area without disturbing the wetland was questionable.  Robert Baskerville, PE, noted that wetland crossings were approved for abutting lots and they had already accessed those crossings to cut trees on the lots in question.  The Chairman asked if a brook ran under the crossings.  Hans Hassel replied it did not.  Robert Baskerville, PE, reiterated that it would be possible to access existing crossings to get to the other side of the lot for the construction of the bridge.  The Chairman asked who would be installing the bridge.  Robert Baskerville, PE, replied that it was not certain.  The Chairman noted that the furthest footing of the bridge noted on the plan would be a factor for the approval of the Driveway Permit as it was close to wetlands.  Robert Baskerville, PE, replied that the plan could specify that construction of the proposed bridge would not impact the wetlands.  The Chairman noted that point was already a statute.  Robert Baskerville, PE, clarified that they could use existing crossings to access the necessary construction areas for the bridge legally.  Morgan Hollis, Esq., noted that the lot would
not qualify as a lot if it was not built according to the stipulations of its Driveway Permit which could be revoked if that were the case, therefore, the applicant would assure that the proposed bridge could be constructed per all requirements.  Hans Hassel noted that the erosion control measures would be in place for the proposed bridge construction.  Robert Baskerville, PE, pointed out that it would be difficult to market the property without the bridge in place on the lot.  Bob Furey suggested that the erosion control plan should explain how the applicant intended to access the lot to construct the proposed bridge.  Morgan Hollis, Esq., added that he could include a notation on the plan that there would be easements as needed to get across to the lot for bridge construction access if the Board would impose it.  He further added that a stipulation could be included that the proposed bridge on Lot #8/84-30-1 would need to be completed before the conveyance of the neighboring property which would be providing the access for its construction.  The Chairman stated that language regarding maintenance of the bridge and surrounding area should be included.
                The Chairman asked the life span of the proposed bridge.  Robert Baskerville, PE, replied that it would be equal to the life span of the house it would provide access to and that repaving requirements would be the same as if it were on a highway.  The Chairman noted that the life span of the bridge and pavement would be greater than if the bridge serviced a highway because of the minimal traffic flow it would sustain.
                Don Duhaime asked if the outstanding fees had been addressed.  The Chairman clarified that these fees had been paid.  He then asked who would supply the bridge design plans.  Robert Baskerville, PE, replied that they would be supplied by a manufacturer, Conspan, once a deposit was paid.
                The Chairman asked Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, his thoughts regarding the bridge proposal.  Roch Larochelle replied that he questioned the feasibility of the bridge construction.  The Chairman explained that the way the access was proposed to Lot #8/84-30-1 was the only alternative because the applicant would not be able to get another wetland crossing for the plan.  Roch Larochelle assumed that a lot with such a bridge/span would be marketed as an expensive lot.  Robert Baskerville, PE, noted that two lots on phase 2 of the development project were accessed by bridges done by the same builder that would be involved on this plan.  The Coordinator noted that those bridges had large culverts underneath.  Roch Larochelle noted that maintenance of the bridge area by its potential property owner should be spelled out.  Brandy Mitroff asked why this should be of any more concern to the Board than the circular driveway issue.  The Chairman replied that there was more of a safety factor and liability issue involved in the case of a bridge on a lot.  Douglas Hill thought that the homeowner’s liability insurance would play a role.
                The Coordinator asked if the topography of the site could be reviewed because a steep slope noted in the rear corner of Lot #8/84-30-1 during the previous meeting appeared to be eliminated as such by the presence of a plateau area that interrupted the lot which was viewed during the site walk.  Robert Baskerville, PE, noted that the soils map provided was from the original phase of the subdivision before the existence of a Steep Slopes Ordinance.  He added that it had been noted on the plan that the slopes in the middle section of Lot #8/84-30-1 were considered C slopes and less than 15%.  Robert Baskerville, PE, added that the Lot was made up of the stream bank, bridge span area and C slope topography.  
                The Coordinator asked how existing guard rails at that location on the road would be altered.  Robert Baskerville, PE, replied that these alterations could be shown on the plan and that the portion of rail at the 640 contour would need to be removed and pushed out further to accommodate a proposed driveway entrance.  He added that an existing manhole in this location would also need to be removed and that the necessary language would be included on the plan.  The Chairman asked if the proposed drainage swale on the plan was needed to make the drainage calculations work.  Robert Baskerville, PE, replied that was correct and that because of the site went uphill most of the drainage would travel across the street, therefore the swale would handle minimal amounts of runoff.
                The Chairman noted that a driveway was now proposed on a corner of the road where a guardrail had been required and asked how that conflict would be addressed.  Robert Baskerville, PE, replied that the existing guardrail would need to wrap around towards that property line and the slope raised by building the driveway entrance at a -3% grade from the centerline of the roadway.
                Bob Furey asked if sprinkler covenants would be provided for Lot #8/84-30-1.  Robert Baskerville, PE, replied that they were submitted.  Morgan Hollis, Esq., noted that such covenants had been required on the earlier phase of the subdivision which had encompassed this site as well, however, an amendment could be made to address this site specifically.  He added that he would inform the potential developer of this fact.  The Chairman asked that the amended covenants be submitted to the Board.  Morgan Hollis, Esq., replied that he would do so.
                Roch Larochelle suggested that the minimum width of the bridge for Lot #8/84-30-1 be specified to be adequate for emergency apparatus travel.  Robert Baskerville, PE, noted that the proposed bridge would be built according to the Driveway Regulations.

        Bob Furey MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plat of Land of Seff Enterprises and Holdings, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #8/84-30, Foxberry Drive, for the subdivision of two lots, subject to:

        CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
                1.   Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing to include:
        -       a note to be added to the plan regarding sprinkler covenants for Lot #8/84-30-01;
        -       a note to be added to the plan stating that the bridge will be built to HS2O loading standards and the Town of New Boston driveway regulations;
        -       a note to be added to the erosion control plan allowing access to Lot # 8/84-30-01, without crossing the wetlands;
        -       submission of any easements that might be required on the appropriate lots.
                2.   Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
                3.   Submission of the language of the Declaration of Covenants and Restriction regarding the installation of sprinkler systems in each house in the subdivision and deed language that would incorporate that requirement, and approval of same by                   Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
                4.   Submission of Executed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions regarding         sprinkler systems.  The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
                 5.   Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.        
                6.   Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
        7.   Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD.
                
        The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be July 15, 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.
                
                CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
                1.   Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved subdivision.
                2.   No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until the sprinkler systems are installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee, in accordance with Chapter NB-5.0 of the Town of New Boston Building                     Code, and the driveways are installed and approved by the Road Agent and the      Planning Board, and the road is installed through binder pavement, and the road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) are installed to the satisfaction of the Road                Agent/town’s engineer, and guard rails are installed to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town’s engineer (if necessary), and the As-Built plans have been reviewed and approved by the town’s engineer.
                The deadline date for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be June 15, 2007,  the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing to be held on the application.  Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.    

                Morgan Hollis, Esq., asked if the CUP extension request needed to be discussed.  The Coordinator replied that it had already been approved.

        Douglas Hill MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #’s 05-14 & 05-15,    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.
        
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.  An abutter present was Scott Dana.
        Bob Todd, LLS, stated that since the last meeting with the Board the property transfer with the Haleys had been finalized and Northern Sky Holdings now owned the property at 5 River Road.  He added that this information had been revised on the plan which the deed referenced.  Bob Todd, LLS, further added that a new septic system had also been installed recently and noted its location on the plan.  He stated that these were the only changes made to the plan since the last meeting and noted that a site walk had also been held which he was not present for.
        Bob Todd, LLS, summarized the plan proposal to be a conversion of an existing single family home into two office spaces with one being for the law practice of the applicant and the other space on the second floor as an additional professional office to lease.  He noted that the existing property had a driveway which the applicant proposed to widen to 20 feet and two parking spaces which the applicant wished to increase to nine including a handicap space.  Bob Todd, LLS, added that NH DOT had approved the width change of the driveway with requisite flaring and the adjoining property had agreed to share the improved access way.  He noted the walkway on the plan that led from the driveway to the existing front porch and entrance to the first floor of the home which would service the applicant’s law office.  Bob Todd, LS, explained that the two end parking spaces at the rear of the lot were proposed for employee parking due to the vehicle backing difficulties presented by those spots.  He noted that the handicap parking area would access a separate entrance by way of a wooden ramp with a maximum 8% incline that would lead to the proposed conference room on the first floor.  Bob Todd, LLS, further noted that the handicap ramp design was still in process.  
        He then showed the location of the septic system on the site which was under the space intended for handicap parking and added that an H20 leaching facility was included with the system which meant that the existing landscaping along the boundary line of the property would be lost and some of that vegetation relocated on other parts of the property.  Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the existing foundation plantings and shrubbery would remain in its present location and that three new sugar maple trees were proposed to satisfy the requirements of the landscape plan.  He noted that once the parking lot on the site was paved the lot would have 59% of the total lot area as impervious surface.  Bob Todd, LLS, stated that stormwater would enter a proposed surface grate leading to a three chamber tank that would treat the runoff.  He explained that the first chamber would deal with sediment, the second with grease and oil and the third further settling and distribution of stormwater which would travel to filtration trenches.
        Bob Todd, LLS, noted the corner areas of the parking lot on the plan for snow storage
and added that contractors would remove any excess amounts.  
        Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the plan showed detailed dimensions of the existing structure on the site and that unshaded areas denoted auxiliary uses such as closets, stairs, kitchen, bathrooms and the porch.  He returned to the detail of the filtration system and the erosion and sediment control measures by noting that the existing slope abutting the Dana property would be shielded with FiltrexTM, a compost filled fabric “sock” that can be planted on top of slopes and efficiently loamed and seeded.  Douglas Hill asked if the proposed pavement of the parking lot would slope towards the intended surface grate.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was the case and the grate would be located at a low point in the parking area to achieve that effect.  He added that the only runoff should be snow melt.  The Chairman asked the width of the proposed grate area.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was six feet.  
        Douglas Hill asked the width of the area between the proposed walkway and the left side of the property.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that at its narrowest point the area was twelve feet wide and the walkway itself would be four feet in width.  The Chairman asked how a delivery truck such as UPS would be able to turn around on the lot for deliveries.  Bob Todd, LLS, thought that a delivery truck could drive into the parking lot and back up into the handicap parking area to make the turn to exit out.  The Chairman asked how this could be feasible if that area was set aside for parking.  Bob Todd, LLS, believed that the two instances would most likely coordinate naturally because the handicap spot would not be in use much of the time.  Douglas Hill asked if a dumpster was proposed on the plan.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that one was not and that trash would be minimal and contained inside the building.  The Chairman expressed concern that deliveries of professional documents would be frequent to the site and that the parking lot could not accommodate these vehicles.  David Craig noted that he ran a paperless office at his current facility and that any mail deliveries went to his personal residence.  The Chairman asked if fire truck access would be an issue and noted that the Apple Barn business next to Dodge’s Store had an issue with their parking area for emergency vehicles.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the Fire Department had reviewed the plan and had no issues.  Douglas Hill noted that the proposed widening of the driveway on the site would accommodate two cars.  Bob Todd, LLS, added that NHDOT required the widening in order to prevent queuing of traffic on Route 13 toward the parking area.  Christine Quirk stated that fire apparatus would most likely park on Route 13 in front of the building rather than drive into the parking lot in the event of an emergency.  
        The Chairman did not see the feasibility of storing snow in the locations noted on the plan as it appeared there was six feet between the rear parking space on the site and the lot line with an existing slope involved.  Bob Todd, LLS, clarified that there was ten feet between the parking space in question and the vegetation on the barrier slope.  The Chairman thought that
plowed snow would infringe upon the existing shrub line and felt that it was unfair to the abutter who would be viewing snow banks and a parking lot larger than the building it was servicing.  Abutter, Scott Dana agreed and was concerned that snow melt from such plowing would end up flooding his back yard in the spring.  He also questioned the use of FiltrexTM socks previously mentioned to vegetate the slope against the property line.  The Chairman asked the grade of the driveway on the site.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was approximately three feet of rise fromthe property to the edge of the pavement.  The Chairman noted that given that information Scott Dana should not see any snow melt from the site on to his property.  He added that because the applicant was not allowed to have snow plowed on to the abutter’s property there was no snow storage plan in place unless two parking spaces were used for the storage and then the snow was removed by a contractor.  David Craig thought that this issue could be handled as it presented itself and was aware that he may lose a parking space to snow storage.  The Chairman stated that the snow storage area needed to be adequate for the plan and further questioned how a dump truck and loader would service the site for snow removal given the parking area proposed and the turning radius required for such equipment.  David Craig suggested that the proposed handicap ramp could be relocated alongside the building rather than at the front so as to dedicate more area for snow storage.  He noted that this design was still in process due to the status of his application with the Board and the difficulty to secure contractors.  Douglas Hill asked the height of the proposed handicap ramp to the access door of the building.  Bob Todd, LLS, explained that 31 feet of run would be required to accommodate an 8% rise.  David Craig reiterated that other designs could be considered for the ramp such as the back and forth zig-zag pattern if necessary and that he was willing to have minor modifications of that nature made to the plan if snow storage became a significant concern of the Board.  Douglas Hill noted that he believed the applicant would not want to incur major snow removal costs with every snow storm.  David Craig was in agreement.  The Chairman asked how snow could be loaded out of a snow storage area in the last two parking spots on the plan without pushing it on to the abutter’s property.  David Craig replied that the property line was close to the existing slope and thought that there should be ways of backing in towards the area to load the snow.
        The Chairman stated that because there was a three foot elevation difference between the abutter’s property and the edge of the site’s parking lot headlights from cars in that parking lot would shine into the abutter’s residence.  David Craig asked for clarification of the Chairman’s statement.  The Chairman explained that because of daylight issues in the winter and the headlight placement on certain types of vehicles the headlights would most likely shine into the windows of Scott Dana’s home.  Scott Dana added that the plan noted hours of operation to 9:00 p.m.  David Craig pointed out that the site was located in a commercial district.  The Chairman noted that because Scott Dana was a resident living in a commercial district it was the applicant’s responsibility to show on his plan how his usage would be shielded from the abutter.  He added that the proposed paved parking lot would also generate a heat load which could affect the abutter also.  David Craig clarified that the Chairman’s main concerns thus far involved the parking spots related to snow storage and headlights from cars entering the parking lot that should only shine on the back portion of the lot and not towards the abutter’s property.  The Chairman replied that because the driving and parking characteristics of individuals could not be predicted a shield between the applicant’s property and the abutter’s was warranted to downplay the glare of headlights.  He suggested that some type of continuous shrubbery in this location would be acceptable.  Douglas Hill suggested that a fence could also work there.  He asked Scott Dana if he felt that car headlights in the applicant’s parking lot would be a disturbance.  Scott Dana replied that the parking lot itself would present a negative visual impact.  David Craig
wished to note that although the hours of operation on the plan were until 9:00 p.m., he scheduled clients no later than 6:00 p.m. and sometimes remained alone at his current office until 11:00 p.m.  Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the plan provided nine parking spaces where only five were required and asked if it would be acceptable to the Board to use four of the nine for snow storage along with installing a six foot fence as a visual barrier.  The Chairman added that if only three unpaved spaces were allotted for snow storage the snow could be effectively contained in that location for the winter season with no hauling necessary.  David Craig noted that he wished to make the site as functional as possible and asked if the parking spaces in question could be used for snow storage when needed and revert back to viable parking spaces when not.  The Chairman replied that the applicant was required to plan for what occurrences were possible such as the 25 year rain storm on the drainage plan.  David Craig asked if there was any reason he could not store snow in the last two parking spaces temporarily.  The Chairman stated that would be acceptable as long as no snow melt ran onto the abutter’s property as a result.  The Chairman stated that he would like to see two parking spaces revised on the plan to green space for snow storage and a buffer of shrubs placed along the property line between the applicant and the abutter.  David Craig stated that he understood the Chairman’s concerns regarding snow storage and headlight disturbance but still questioned why he needed to surrender two parking spaces on the plan.  He thought that given the commercial use status of the site maximizing parking should be considered at the forefront and did not think that it mattered if snow was stored on paved space versus green space when the paved space could be utilized for the nine months of the year when snow was not a factor.  The Chairman noted that another applicant with more square footage, Geoff Katz, had lost three parking spaces on his plan because it had been deemed that a fire lane for the Fire Department were more important than client spaces.  He clarified that the Town had more to consider in commercial use site plans than the applicant’s maximization of parking space.  David Craig noted that the Chairman’s issue was not related to concerns of the Fire Department.  The Chairman replied that the Board was more concerned about benefits to the Town than profits for the applicant.  David Craig stated that his plan represented a commercial building in a commercial use district that was consistent with stipulations of the Master Plan and that he was not in agreement over losing two viable parking spaces for snow storage only.  The Chairman noted that Bob Todd, LLS, had made that suggestion.  Bob Todd, LLS, clarified that he had noted that it would be of no consequence to the site plan if snow was stockpiled on several parking spaces in the winter given that the Regulations only required five spaces and nine had been provided.  David Craig noted that Bob Todd, LLS’s, theory contrasted with eliminating these parking spaces entirely.  Douglas Hill likened the scenario to shopping center parking lots that lost certain parking area to snow storage each winter.  The Chairman replied that such areas were not losing a third of their parking as in the applicant’s case.  Scott Dana interjected that he was concerned about the applicant’s comment that maximizing parking on the lot was a high priority.  The Chairman clarified that a main concern of the Planning Board was that green space be maintained on plans whenever possible and in this case he was concerned about the large area of proposed pavement and the ability of delivery trucks to make a turn around in the parking lot without backing onto Route 13 as stipulated by the State driveway permit.  David Craig noted that there was a Town parking lot across the street from the site and delivery trucks could park there if needed.  Don Duhaime felt that was not an acceptable solution to the problem. The Chairman agreed and stated that the applicant should be able to sustain the usage proposed by accommodating delivery trucks.  Bob Furey wondered how other residents on Route 13 accommodated delivery trucks in their driveways.  Don Duhaime noted that the applicant’s professional tenant was entitled to this service also.  Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the applicant could receive deliveries at his residence instead and added that many individuals within the Village dealt with certain constraints due to parking, etc.  Douglas Hill asked how wide the driveway entrance would be.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was proposed to be 20 feet in width.  Douglas Hill noted that this would enable a delivery truck to easily enter the parking lot.  The Chairman added that trucks were not allowed to back onto the main roadway when leaving.  From the audience, Brandy Mitroff suggested that the driveway apron be flared in order to allow a delivery truck to parallel park in the entrance way which would only block the driveway momentarily.  David Craig felt that a delivery person should be able to consider appropriate parking options and noted that he had no problems with such trucks at his current location.  The Chairman noted that the applicant’s current location did not involve a main roadway as did this plan and that the main concern he had was the ability of delivery trucks to complete a successful turn around to exit the parking lot.  David Craig reiterated the possibility of using the Town parking lot across the street from the site.  He added that he thought it impossible to draft a plan that could address all hypothetical contingencies.
        The Chairman stated that more work was needed on the plan including a provision for some type of barrier on the lot line between the site and the abutter’s house to the rear corner of the lot.  David Craig asked if a seven foot stockade fence would address that issue as he wished to keep the application in progress.  The Chairman asked Scott Dana his thoughts regarding a proposed stockade fence as a visual barrier.  Scott Dana did not think a stockade fence was in character with the Village area.  The Chairman noted that another fence of that type was proposed further up Route 13 and such fencing might become more characteristic in the future.  He asked David Craig how he proposed to accommodate the delivery trucks.  David Craig asked for specific trucks lengths so that he make appropriate considerations.  From the audience Roch Larochelle stated that the trucks were considered to be SU types.  The Chairman thought their lengths were approximately 25 feet in length.  David Craig thought that the only time a delivery truck would have difficulty turning around in the parking lot was when all parking spaces were occupied in which case he could go out and move his own vehicle to accommodate the truck.  The Chairman replied that was an unrealistic solution to the problem.  David Craig disagreed.  Brandy Mitroff thought that other driveways on River Road, a/k/a Route 13, must have the same challenges concerning delivery trucks such as the Barone residence.  She again suggested that the apron to the applicant’s driveway be widened.  The Chairman felt that would not be an aesthetically pleasing alteration.  He added that if revisions were made to the plan to aptly accommodate both snow storage and removal combined with being an acceptable turnaround area for delivery trucks and other large vehicles he would be satisfied.  The Chairman suggested that this could be accomplished by not delineating the two parking spots at the rear of the parking lot and that in the event of a client that needed the extra parking for by example a large family meeting with the applicant then these spaces could be used for the overflow.  David Craig asked if this meant that the proposed paved area would remain the same, however, the lines would not be painted for the last two parking spaces.  The Chairman replied that was correct.  He added that he would also like to see a hedged barrier on the lot line between the applicant and the abutter which he believed Mr. Dana would also prefer.  The Chairman clarified that if these three items were addressed his issues would be covered.  Douglas Hill noted that the applicant could specify that no deliveries would be made to the professional building on the site.  The Chairman stated that such a stipulation was unacceptable and not the way to run a business.  David Craig stated that he thought a fence would be more functional over a shrub like barrier and felt that this issue was less of a practical concern than the Chairman was presenting.  He added that in the case of delivery truck maneuverability he thought that the trucks should be able to back into the lot and temporarily use a handicap parking spot.  David Craig stated that his goal was to proceed with the application process successfully and get back to his profession.  Scott Dana noted that his goal was to live comfortably next to a commercial building.
        The Chairman asked if the applicant was in agreement with the plan modifications he suggested.  David Craig asked for clarification of the Board’s requirements so that he could address all issues for the next meeting.  The Chairman replied that the Board would like some type of fence or barrier provided on the plan which would serve to separate the parking area and the abutter’s residence.  He added that the Board would also prefer that an area be noted on the plan to accommodate the turning of SU vehicles on the lot so that delivery vehicles were not backing into the main roadway in front of the property.  The Chairman further added that by eliminating the delineation of two parking spaces at the back end of the parking lot on the site that area could provide dual service as a snow staging area.  David Craig asked for the opinions from other individual Board members regarding their preference for these revisions.  Bob Furey and Christine Quirk stated that they agreed with the Chairman’s proposals for revisions to the plan.  Douglas Hill again asked Scott Dana if he agreed that some sort of barrier was needed between the properties to minimize headlight glare from the applicant’s parking lot onto his property.  Scott Dana replied that he did and added that if a barrier was not installed he would be forced to install a berm in that location to accomplish the same result.  The Chairman stated that if the suggested space was allotted for snow storage then potential runoff would be minimal.  Douglas Hill agreed.  Scott Dana noted that this point was assuming that the plowed snow would stay on the applicant’s property and not be pushed onto his.
        David Craig asked if it was administratively possible to hand note the revisions mentioned on the plan at this meeting so that the application could move forward.  Douglas Hill thought that would be acceptable.  The Chairman noted that it could be noted as a condition that the final plan included the amendments discussed.  Douglas Hill further noted that the approval of the handicap ramp design should be addressed by the Building Inspector.  Don Duhaime disagreed and thought that the ramp design was still an issue on the plan.  Douglas Hill pointed out that a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), could not be issued without the Building Inspector’s approval of the ramp.  The Chairman clarified that a note could be added to the plan stating that the ramp needed to be a suitable handicap egress deemed appropriate by the Building Inspector in order for a CO to be issued.  
        Douglas Hill asked Bob Todd, LLS, if he felt there were any other issues with the plan.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he did not.  The Chairman stated that he believed that the applicant and the Board were now clear on what modifications would be made to the plan.  
        Bob Todd, LLS, asked if there were any outstanding fees.  The Coordinator replied that there was an outstanding fee of $18.50 which was the result of a difference between a bill that was issued by the Planning Department and the check that was received.  She added that the payment of this fee could be a condition of acceptance of the application.
        Don Duhaime asked if any exterior lighting alterations were proposed for the back of the parking lot since the last meeting.  David Craig replied that there were no new proposals.  Bob Todd, LLS, explained that existing exterior lighting was noted on the plan and the original proposal had included one light over the handicap entrance to the building and lighting on the pathway to the handicap parking space.  The Chairman stated that a note should be included on the plan that said the exterior lighting would not shine onto the abutter’s property.

        Bob Furey MOVED to approve the Non-Residential Site Plan Application by David   
        Craig, Manager, Northern Sky Holdings, LLC, to operate a law office and professional    
        offices from 1,940 s.f. of the existing building on Tax Map/Lot #18/8, N.H. Route 13    
        a/k/a River Road, subject to:
        
        CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
        1.   Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing, to include:
                -       providing a barrier between Lot #18/8 and 18/7 by means of a fence or appropriate shrubs;
                -       providing an area to turn an SU body truck around in the lot so no delivery vehicles back onto the highway;
                -       reviewing parking spaces in order to provide a larger snow staging area.
        2.      Submission of outstanding fees in the amount of $18.50.
        3.   Execution of a Site Review Agreement.
        The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be July 30, 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.
                
                CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
                1.   All site improvements are to be completed as per the approved site plans.
                2.   The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to scheduling a compliance hearing on thise improvements, a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the anticipated dtae of the compliance hearing;
                3.   Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted;   
                4.   A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that site improvements have been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of any Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy, or both.  No occupancy/use of the law or          professional offices shall be permitted until the site improvements as noted have been completed, and a site inspection and compliance hearing held.
                The deadline date for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be December 31,    2005, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing for each phase as noted in item #5 above.  
        David Craig asked if the consideration of a shrub barrier was still an option.  The Chairman replied that it was with the anticipation that the plantings would grow into shrubs.  David Craig clarified that the intent of the shrub barrier would be to block         
headlight glare from the parking lot on the site onto the abutter’s property.  The Chairman stated that was correct.  David Craig felt that a fence would better address that intent.  The Chairman reiterated that a wall of shrubbery would be more aesthetically pleasing and noted that compliance on young shrubbery would be acceptable.  David Craig stressed that he wanted clarification on this issue so that he could effectively    communicate what was needed to his contractors.  The Chairman replied that if a fence was proposed then it would need to be installed from the back corner of the lot and half way to the front of the property line.  He added that it would be expected that you could see through new shrubbery for approximately one year from the time it was planted. David Craig thought that the best way to accomplish the goal of a solid visual barrier would be to install a fence.  The Chairman noted that installing a fence would eliminate any thought the abutter would have of complaining that snow was being      plowed from the applicant’s parking lot onto his property. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

GAGNON, MICHAEL
Compliance Hearing/Major Site Plan/Garage Expansion
Location: 524 North Mast Road
Tax Map/Lot #3/82
Commercial “COM” District

        The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice.  He stated that the Coordinator, James Nordstrom and Douglas Hill had attended the compliance site walk and determined that the site was in compliance.

        Bob Furey MOVED to confirm that Michael P. Gagnon has complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to expand the existing tire sales by adding a    1,022 s.f. addition on property located at 524 North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/82 and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        At 11:10 p.m. Bob Furey MOVED to adjourn. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,


Suzanne O’Brien,
Recording Clerk                                        Minutes Approved: