Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 06/28/2005
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan.  Present were regular member, James Nordstrom; ex-officio Christine Quirk; and, alternate Don Duhaime.  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, Rick Martin, Kim Burkhamer, Willard Dodge, Roch Larochelle, Bob Todd, LLS, Pat Panciocco, Esq., Mark Anderson, Jay Marden, Hans Hassel, Wayne and Barry Charrest, Mark Moser, PE, Todd Connors, PE, Mike Dahlberg, LLS, Paul Morin, Dick and Betsy Moody and Kim DiPietro.

                The Chairman appointed Don Duhaime as a full voting member of the Board for this evening’s hearings.

DONALD E. GARRETSON (APPLICANT/OWNER)
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC., RICK MARTIN (APPLICANT)       
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/20 Lots
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 52
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and the applicant, Rick Martin.  Abutters and interested parties present were Kim Burkhamer, Jay Marden, Kim DiPietro and Mark Anderson.  Other unidentified persons were also present for this hearing.
        Rick Martin stated that because he had only recently become aware that submittals for a plan must be into the Planning Department 15 days prior to the hearing he could not be heard tonight for this application as the submission of the Site Specific permit had not met that deadline.  He added that he was requesting that the road plan be forwarded in the interim to the Town Engineer regarding offsite improvements to Beard Road.  Rick Martin noted that he understood this option to be a new procedure that the Board considered on a case by base basis regarding subdivision plans.  The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the subdivision plan would be forwarded to the Town Engineer with the road plan if the Board allowed such an option.  The Coordinator replied that this would be the case and that the Town Engineer could be asked to give the plan a preliminary review and forward general comments to the Board.  Christine Quirk noted that a preliminary review by the Town Engineer could prove helpful for the applicant’s next meeting.  The Chairman asked Rick Martin if he understood that such reviews would be at the applicant’s risk and cost.  Rick Martin replied that he understood.  The Chairman then asked if comments from the Road Committee regarding the plan would be supplied to the Board and Dufresne-Henry, Inc., simultaneously or if the comments would first be supplied to the Board who would then forward them to the Town Engineer.  The Coordinator replied that the latter was true.  The Chairman asked if the Board had any issues with this optional procedure and they did not.  He clarified that this was a new procedure for the Board to see whether road plans could be addressed earlier in the application process and reiterated that a drawback for that the applicant in this case was that he could incur engineering costs on preliminary plans.  Rick Martin noted that he had already incurred engineering costs because his plan had been submitted to the State.   
        Rick Martin asked if the Board would consider forwarding the legal documents of the plan to Town Counsel in consideration of the lead time involved for review and the fact that this was the first case of an over age 55 condominium project that was progressing with the Town.  James Nordstrom replied that he understood the rationale behind preliminary engineering review for the road plan based on comments provided by the Road Committee, however, the Board preferred to wait for an application to be considered complete before forwarding it to Town Counsel for review.  He added that he saw no need to change that procedure for this application.  The Chairman noted that the only benefit he could see in forwarding the condominium documentation before the application was considered complete was that Town Counsel could flag items that might not satisfy Zoning requirements which could then be modified prior to the applicant’s next hearing.  James Nordstrom noted that even if Town Counsel received these documents earlier it did not guarantee that they would be reviewed any sooner.  Don Duhaime agreed that it was premature to submit the plan’s legal documents to Town Counsel prior to the application being accepted as complete.  He also agreed that it was a good idea to forward the plans to Dufresne-Henry, Inc., for a preliminary review.  Christine Quirk stated that she would not want to institute a precedent with this application by forwarding the legal documents to Town Counsel sooner.  Rick Martin stated that he only made the request based on the rationale behind the preliminary engineering review.
        James Nordstrom asked if the application was being adjourned at the applicant’s request.  The Coordinator replied that was correct.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Donald E. Garretson and Right Way Builders, Inc., Rick Martin, Major Subdivision, 20 Lots, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 52, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to July 26, 2005, at 7:00         p.m.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2005

1.              Approval of minutes of May 24, 2005, with or without changes. (Distributed at the June
        14, 2005, meeting.)

        James Nordstrom stated that in the text of the hearing for Harvey Dupuis Family Trust Paul Carideo was noted as a “PE” several times which he believed was not the case.  He added that the second to the last line of the third paragraph from the bottom of page 3 should read “The Chairman stated that it appeared by the plan that the formerly proposed Lot #12/93-34 was now the proposed road bed.”  

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of May 24, 2005, as amended.  
        Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
        
2.      Signature required for Site Review Agreement for Northern Sky Holdings, LLC, by David Craig, Manager, Tax Map/Lot #18/8, 5 River Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.

        The Chairman signed the above noted Site Review Agreement.

3.      Endorsement of a Non-Residential Site Plan for Michael P. Gagnon, Mr. Gee’s Tires, 524 North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/82, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

                The Chairman and Vice Chairman (in the Secretary’s absence), signed the above noted Non-Residential Site Plan.

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

        Don Duhaime stated that he had not had the opportunity to review the above noted driveway. James Nordstrom asked if this Driveway Permit Application had been previously submitted.  Don Duhaime stated that it had been submitted at the time as the Driveway Permit Application for Lot #6/32-23 and asked if the latter was approved.  The Coordinator replied that it had been at the last meeting and that the Driveway Permit Application for Lot #6/32-24 was the one that had been submitted too late to the Planning Department, procedurally, for the Board’s action at the last meeting.  
        The Chairman thought that As-Built Plans should be stipulated in the approval of the Driveway Permit Application as the Board had required for Lot #6/32-23.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application # _______,for, Tax Map/Lot # 6/32-24, for a 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.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

5.              Driveway Permit Application for Thibeault Corp. of N.E., Tax Map/Lot #6/41-1 through    10, Byam Road, for Planning Board approval. (No Copies)

        Christine Quirk stated that she recalled viewing the above noted driveways during the
recent site walk of the property.  The Chairman asked if any of these proposed driveways looked acceptable.  Don Duhaime replied that the proposed driveways for Lot #’s 6/41-8, 9 & 10 looked satisfactory with a 3%-6% grade.  The Coordinator noted that Bob Furey had e-mailed his observations regarding these driveways and it was his opinion that engineered plans should be required for the driveways proposed for Lot #’s 6/41-1 to 6/41-7.
        Don Duhaime asked how the sight distances looked from each driveway.  The Chairman replied that the sight distance of the driveway, located across from the upper intersection of Byam Road and Inkberry Road seemed questionable and the lots became gradually more challenging as they traversed down the hill.               
        
        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #s _______,for, Tax Map/Lot #’s 6/41-8, 9 & 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.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

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

        The Coordinator replied that the above noted Driveway Permit Application was before the Board at the meeting of June 14, 2005 and was rescheduled for consideration at this evening’s meeting as no Board members had been able to view it.  James Nordstrom asked if the proposed driveway was new construction or the relocation of an existing driveway.  The Coordinator thought by the sketch provided that the proposed driveway was a relocation due to work that was being done to the exterior of the home on the site.  Because Board members had been unable to view the driveway the Chairman sought the opinion of Willard Dodge who was in the audience, as he resided on Tucker Mill Road and was familiar with the area.  Upon reviewing the sketch Willard Dodge stated that because the relocation was proposed uphill on the property and to the upper side of the existing house the sight distance from the driveway should be improved.  He added that he did not see any drawbacks to the proposed relocation.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application # _______, for, Tax Map/Lot # 2/1, for a 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.
        
7.      A copy of a letter dated June 23, 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Waldorf Estates, was distributed for the Board’s information.

        The Coordinator explained that both Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., and Robert Baskerville of Bedford Design Consultants had prepared estimates for bond reduction amounts relative to Lot #8/84.  She noted Bedford Design’s estimated reduced amount to be $44,327.00 and the Town Engineer’s to be $46K.  The Chairman stated that the Board should go with the Town Engineer’s recommendation as was their policy.  
        
        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the bond reduction prepared by Dufrene-Henry, Inc., on June 24, 2005, which reduced the bond amount for Waldorf Estates to $46K.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        Hans Hassel was present in the audience and agreeable to this amount.  He asked if he would be receiving a hard copy notification of the bond reduction in order to submit it to the insurance company.  The Coordinator replied that the Planning Department would advise the insurance company but would also provide a copy of the notification to the applicant.
        
8.      A copy of a letter dated June 21, 2005, from Morgan Hollis, Gottesman & Hollis, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: request for bond reduction for Waldorf Estates, Foxberry Drive, was distributed for the Board’s action.

        This item was addressed in item #7.

9.      A copy of a letter received June 24, 2005, from Geoffrey Katz, 299 Stark Realty, Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Apple Barn, 3 Central Square, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

        The Coordinator explained that at the time of the original application the site plan proposed a first floor retail space and the second floor as office space.  She added that a small scale fitness and physical therapy establishment was now being considered as a tenant.  The Coordinator further added that according to the Zoning Ordinance the existing parking spaces would not need to be increased for the use proposed, however, the Board should decide if the original Site Plan needed to be revised to reflect this usage.  The Chairman recalled that at the time of the original application the future tenant was unknown and that the number of parking spaces had been maximized for that reason.  He added that if the physical therapy/fitness center did not propose to increase the parking burden he would have no issue with the proposal.  Christine Quirk noted that she also recalled that the usage options for the second floor on the plan were left open and that the applicant intended to inform the Board when tenants became considered.  The Chairman stated that the proposal would not affect any exterior items of the Site Plan.
        James Nordstrom stated that the property was serviced by a State permitted potable
water supply, well and septic system with the flow being limited to 600-700 gallons per day.  He added that he had no issue with the usage proposed provided that it did not compromise this water supply.  James Nordstrom asked if the Board should approve the proposed use based on such confirmation.  Christine Quirk asked if those were included in the terms of the application’s original approval.  The Coordinator replied they were not because at that time the additional usage was unknown.  The Chairman stated that the applicant should be informed that the Board’s approval of the usage now proposed would be based on the submission of documentation which clarified that the use coincided with State regulations for its septic, driveway and water supply as permitted for the site.  
        Don Duhaime asked if the applicant was bound to the same criteria as the Willards who had been recent applicants who proposed a usage change for an existing building in the nearby vicinity.  James Nordstrom replied that the Apple Barn’s scenario differed from the Willards’ as it had an existing approved septic system on site.  Don Duhaime asked if the Fire Department should review the plan again with the new usage proposed.  Christine Quirk replied that the Fire Department had reviewed the plan at the time of the original application.  The Chairman noted that the Fire Department could always give the plan another review now that a secondary use was proposed.  Don Duhaime stated that he raised his question because he felt that given the possibility of wheelchair bound clients attending the physical therapy center smoke alarms might be required.  The Chairman explained that the plan had been forwarded when first presented to the State Fire Marshall’s office who thoroughly reviewed it and made many suggestions including extra parking spaces allocated for fire apparatus in the event of an emergency.
        The Chairman stated that he would be agreeable to approving the proposed new usage with no hearing required and hand amendments being made to the plan provided that the applicant could demonstrate that all State regulations were satisfied.  James Nordstrom agreed.

10.     A copy of preconstruction meeting minutes of June 20, 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Vista Road, LLC, Hutchinson Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.

11.     The minutes of June 14, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of July 12, 2005, with or without changes.   

12.     Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Vista Road, LLC, Byam and Wilson Hill Roads, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

        This item was addressed at the end of Miscellaneous Business.

13.     Discussion, Re: compliance items for Inkberry Road.

        James Nordstrom stated that the stop signs and street names signs had been installed very recently on Inkberry Road.  He added that the barricade required by the Board for Lot #45 was comprised of a pile of 6” minus rip rap.  Don Duhaime stated that he thought the Board had required a more permanent type of barricade than what the applicant had provided.  James Nordstrom agreed that he had expected to see a section of guardrail blocking the entrance to the driveway rather than 3 yards of rip rap.  The Planning Assistant noted that because construction of the wetland crossing on the Lot was slated to begin in several days the stone pile would likely be moved anyway.  James Nordstrom noted that the rip rap would prevent vehicles from going over the driveway entrance even though it was not a more permanent structure.  He wondered if construction on the Lot might be difficult if a more permanent barricade was installed.  The Coordinator noted that boulder barriers had also been suggested during previous meetings.
        The Chairman asked if the Board could accept the road with conditions and the understanding that the construction of the driveway was intended to commence in a week’s time, whereas if it did not, a more permanent blockade such as a jersey barrier would be required for safety reasons.
        The Chairman asked if Lot #45’s Driveway Permit Application had already been approved.  The Coordinator replied that it had not been because the completion of the wetland crossing was required first.  James Nordstrom asked what the case would be if the road was accepted with conditions and those conditions never became fulfilled.  The Planning Assistant noted that Inkberry Road was still bonded.  The Coordinator added that if the acceptance of the road was granted the bond would be reduced to $5K for shoulder and side slope work.  James Nordstrom noted that Town Counsel had advised the Board with regard to this situation that they should be cautious when considering a road approval with conditions.  The Chairman stated that it was the Board’s responsibility to assure that the road met all safety requirements and, therefore, felt that a more substantial barrier was warranted for Lot #45’s driveway entrance.  Don Duhaime thought that a jersey barrier would be acceptable.  The Chairman agreed and added that it should be kept in place until the driveway was approved and its construction completed.

14.     Discussion, Re: Stephanie Ridley and Benjamin Strauss’s wetland crossing status, Tax    Map/Lot #10/74, Beard Road.

        The Coordinator stated that Bob Furey had viewed the wetland crossing and thought that the grass was growing well and the silt fence working properly.  James Nordstrom added that he had also viewed the crossing and agreed with Bob Furey’s observations.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm the compliance of the wetland crossing for Stephanie Ridley and Benjamin Strauss and to release the remainder of the bond.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

15.     A copy of a letter dated June 24, 2005, from Cynthia Wilson, New Boston Conservation    Commission, to the Board, Re: Waldorf Estates, was distributed for the Board’s information.

        The Chairman noted that this matter had already been acted upon by the Board.  The Coordinator noted that Peter Schauer, a wetlands scientist had been back to the site and determined that the wetland pocket in question was not jurisdictional and would not require a Dredge and Fill Permit.

16a.    A copy of a letter dated April 4, 2005, from Robert Baskerville, Bedford Design Consultants, to the Board, Re: request for bond reduction for Waldorf Estates, was distributed for the Board’s action.

        The above was addressed in item #7.

16b.    A copy of a letter dated June 24, 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, Re: bond reduction for Waldorf Estates, was distributed for the Board’s information.

        The above was addressed in item #7.     

17.     The Coordinator stated that she had distributed copy of a report written by a planning board chairman regarding procedural ideas for planning boards for the Board’s information.

18.     The Coordinator stated that she had received a letter from the developers of Nissitissit which noted their confusion regarding several items.  She explained that the Town was holding a bond for the paving of the driveway apron for Lot #12/19-13 and the Road Agent had suggested that it not be paved until all construction equipment was removed from Warren Drive.  She noted the conflict to be the fact that Lot #12/19-13’s driveway entered off McCurdy Road and not Warren Drive.
        The Coordinator stated that a second issue regarded As-Built Plans which the Subdivision Regulations required to be submitted before Certificates of Occupancy (CO’s) were issued.  The Coordinator noted that in this case the developer has submitted the As-Built Plans and questioned whether the Town would require new ones when the final coat of pavement was put down on the road.  She added that Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had pointed out that the bounds might not be set in place at the time of final paving.  
        The Chairman asked the Coordinator what she suggested.  The Coordinator replied that an immediate response was not requested of the Board, however, they might wish to consider changing the requirement for CO’s where verification that the roadway in front of a lot was in place before As-Built Plans were submitted.  Don Duhaime questioned why bounds were not also required to be set before CO’s were issued.  From the audience, Bob Todd, LLS, stated that most Town’s required that chronology.  The Coordinator noted that the cost of granite bounds were often incorporated into the bond and were completed before the security could be returned to the applicant.

12.     Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Vista Road, LLC, Byam and Wilson Hill Roads, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

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

RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC.
By Rick Martin
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Subdivision & NRSPR/Condominium
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/52-1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, Pat Panciocco, Esq., and the applicant Rick Martin.  Abutters and interested parties present were Kim Burkhamer, Jay Marden, Kim DiPietro, Mark Anderson and several other unidentified persons.
        Pat Panciocco, Esq., gave a brief overview of the proposal and noted that this was a unique application for the Town.  She explained that the plan was proposed in the “R-A” district for permitted use of duplex homes with condominium ownership.  Pat Panciocco, Esq., noted the limited common areas near the proposed duplex and added that the floor plans would be recorded at the Registry of Deeds along with the condominium declaration of covenants so that potential buyers would be properly informed.  She further added that she would be available for questions as the meeting progressed and noted that this application was not intended to be part of the Garretson/Right Way Builders application that had been adjourned earlier in the evening.
        Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the Board had seen the site previously as it was approved as a subdividable lot in April, 2005.  He added that the Driveway Application and septic design were approved with the well proposed in the common area with the building location sited.  Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the driveway was proposed to be 800 feet in length with a gravel surface, six feet wide with turn flares of 20 feet radii at the Beard Road intersection.  He added that a turn around for emergency vehicles accommodated by a 60 foot wide strip had been provided on the plan and could in turn accommodate guest parking for four vehicles.  Bob Todd, LLS, noted the areas of the turn around that would be paved and added that two garage parking spaces would be provided for each building with the owner having the right to pass over the limited common area of the adjoining unit to use the driveway in common.  He noted that underground utility lines were proposed to be centered in a ten foot wide easement in a location that was not yet determined.  Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the slope easement for the proposed Town road needed to be added to the plan.  He further noted that if the duplex was built and conveyed before the road was constructed and the deed given to the Town, Right Way Builders would need to reserve the easement right to convey to the Town as part of the slope easement package for the road.
        Bob Todd, LLS, asked if the Board would be agreeable to a two way entrance and egress on the proposed road.  He added that a checklist item had questioned the exterior lighting proposed.  Bob Todd, LLS, explained that the lighting proposed was no different than the standard lighting of duplex developments with lighting provided over the garage and door entries.  He asked if this lighting should be added to the plan or if a description statement would be adequate.  Bob Todd, LLS, added that storm drainage retention was also on the checklist and explained that because the site was on a gradual slope he anticipated that runoff would be dispersed through existing vegetation with no disturbance to the proposed structures.  He again asked if a note on the plan with this description would be adequate.  Bob Todd, LLS, stated that a final item which could also be noted on the plan involved the snow storage areas which he said would be no different than any other condominium environment where snow could be plowed into the limited common areas.
        James Nordstrom stated that he had no concerns with the lighting and snow storage areas proposed being addressed on the plan by a note.  He added that a brief explanation regarding the drainage environment would also suffice.  The Chairman questioned whether the plan noted that Lot #5/52-1 was part of the applicant’s larger proposed over age 55 subdivision.  The Coordinator and Christine Quirk replied that it was not and that Rick Martin’s attorney had previously stated that it was to be considered a separate entity from that plan.  Bob Todd, LLS, stated that was the case.  The Coordinator clarified that the intent of this proposal did not place any limitations on the age of the potential buyers as in the applicant’s other plan.  Rick Martin stated that was correct.
        Jay Marden stated that he understood the option of constructing a two family home to be a matter of right and asked if the Board’s approval was necessary because of the condominium aspect of the plan.  The Chairman replied that was correct.  Jay Marden asked if, by example, an individual constructed a two family home and later decided to turn it into a condominium if that would then require Board approval.  The Chairman replied that it would.  Jay Marden then asked if a Site Plan review would be the procedure.  The Coordinator replied that it would be a combination of approval for subdivision of the ownership and a Site Plan.  Jay Marden clarified that this would be the case for existing or proposed structures.  The Coordinator replied that was the case.
        Mark Anderson asked if the Town imposed a limit on how many duplexes could be built in one year. The Chairman replied it did not.  Kim Burkhamer asked if this plan would have covenants just as the applicant’s larger unrelated subdivision proposed.  The Chairman replied that this plan would have condominium covenants and was in no way related to the proposed over age 55 subdivision plan.  Bob Todd, LLS, noted that statutory condominium requirements would be applied.  Kim Burkhamer asked where she could access this information.  Rick Martin replied that it had already been submitted and was available to the public.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Right Way Builders, Inc., Rick Martin, Subdivision & NRSPR, Condominium, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/52-1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        The Chairman asked members of the Board if they felt a site walk was necessary.  Rick Martin noted that he believed a site walk had been held previously when he applied to subdivide the property last year.  Christine Quirk stated that she remembered the site walk and recalled that she had no issues with frontage, etc.  James Nordstrom added that he thought that he had walked the property within 200 feet of the proposed building location.  The Chairman asked if the site was flat.  Rick Martin replied that it was and was located on the back side of a flat field that would not be visible from the main roadway.
        Jay Marden asked if the applicant had any further information on the trail that accessed the property and the 4H fairgrounds being a historic road which was discussed at previous meetings.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he did extensive research to determine if this trail was ever a Town road.  He noted that the deed referenced it as a cart road which he interpreted to  have been for private agricultural use.  Rick Martin added that he had discussed the naming of the road with the Townes whose property abutted the trail and told them that he was considering the name of Old Cart Road for this trail.  He noted that the Townes had informed him that was the name of the road but it had just been within their family.
        The Chairman asked if there were any other outstanding items on the plan.  The Coordinator replied that the condominium documentation needed to be reviewed by Town Counsel.  The Chairman asked if this review should be completed before the Board acted on the application.  Christine Quirk thought that the legal review should occur first because this was the first instance of a condominium application that was close to being approved by the Town.  James Nordstrom noted that the Board could not move forward with a decision on the application until they had received opinions back from Town Counsel.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Right Way Builders, Inc., Rick Martin, Subdivision & NRSPR, Condominium, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/52-1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to July 26, 2005, at 8:00 p.m.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
        At 8:20 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break. 

        Christine Quirk recused herself from the Board as her application was up next.

FRIENDLY BEAVER CAMPGROUND      
QUIRK, THOMAS & CHRISTINE (OWNERS)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Construct a 200x50 Garage
Location: Cochran Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/11
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

                The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Mark Moser, PE, the applicant, Christine Quirk and Wayne and Barry Charrest.  No abutters or interested parties were present.
        Mark Moser, PE, stated that the applicant proposed to construct a garage on their property at a location off the access road from the campground to Clark Hill Road which he noted on the plan.  He added that the structure would consist of a main building 100x50 feet and 26 feet high with two 50x50 foot sheds attached at either side.  Mark Moser, PE, noted that two gravel surface parking spaces were also proposed and lit by exterior lighting on the front of the structure.  He further noted that the applicant requested waivers for the Site Plan Review Regulation requirements for landscaping, and the Subdivision Regulation requirements for stormwater management plan notation of physical features within 400 feet of the site and stormwater detentions.  He added that the existing gravel road would need to be shifted over to accommodate the proposed structure due to poorly drained soils in that location.  Mark Moser, PE, stated that the site plan was a simple one.
        The Chairman asked why a site plan review was required for this proposal.  The Coordinator explained that although the site was not considered commercial the use of the proposed structure was and its usage would add to the existing approved site plan.  Christine Quirk noted that she had spoken with the Building Inspector and Fire Department regarding this proposal and was informed by both that it fell under Life Safety Code 101, Chapter 42 which was minimal requirement of two egresses in and out of a structure, exterior lighting, fire extinguishers, illuminated exit lights and smoke detectors.  The Chairman asked what the Board was required to address from a site plan perspective.  The Coordinator replied that the Board was required to address the exterior items of the structure proposed.  The Chairman clarified that access would be provided through one entrance with an additional entrance off Clark Hill Road for emergencies.  He asked if there was any occupancy proposed within the structure.  Christine Quirk replied there was not and there would be no plumbing proposed, only storage for heavy equipment, etc., to be used by the campground.  Mark Moser, PE, noted the location of an existing bathroom a couple of hundred feet from the location of the proposed garage.  Christine Quirk added that the proposed garage was similar to the design of the Town’s Highway Department storage shed with an overhanging roof.  James Nordstrom clarified that the proposed garage would resemble an open shed.  Christine Quirk replied that was correct.  She added that the main portion of the garage proposed to be 100x50 feet was similar in size to the existing recreation hall on the campground property which was 90x50 feet.
        James Nordstrom asked Mark Moser, PE, to justify the waiver requests.  Mark Moser, PE, replied that the waiver for the landscape requirement was requested so that the front of the building could be maximized for storage access with a gravel area only.  Christine Quirk added that garage doors were also proposed on the front of the building.  Mark Moser, PE, noted that no campsites were near the site location.  The Chairman clarified that this site would not be visible to the public and almost completely invisible to campers on the property.  Christine Quirk replied that was correct in conjunction with being as close as possible for access.  Mark Moser, PE, continued with his justification for waiver requests by discussing the requirement for noting physical features within 400 feet of the site on the plan.  He stated that he had shown the wetlands within the proximity of the proposed project and added that because there was no runoff onto the site the physical features within 400 feet were not relevant.  James Nordstrom clarified that there was nothing outside of the scope of the plan that would affect the site.  Mark Moser, PE, stated that a high point of land which he noted in the location of the proposed structure sheeted to wetlands on both sides of the site and he did not believe that any type of stormwater detention was necessary as the proposal was a small project and the large watershed that flowed through the campground towards an exiting marsh was not in this location and should not affect the site.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waivers requested by Mark Moser, PE, in his letter dated May 23, 2005, specific to the Site Plan requirements for landscaping requirements, and the Subdivision Requirements for features and drainage patterns within       400 feet and stormwater detentions based on Mr. Moser’s spoken rationale this evening.          
        Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        The Chairman asked if the roof proposed for the garage would be a one pitch or peaked design.  Mark Moser, PE, replied that the roof was proposed to be peaked on the main section and shedded off the sides.
        The Chairman asked the Board if they felt a site walk was warranted.  James Nordstrom replied that although he had not seen the particular location of the site he was familiar with the campground’s property.  Mark Moser, PE, clarified that the site was basically on a knoll of sand and gravel that fell off towards the access road on the campground property.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Friendly Beaver Campground, Thomas and Christine Quirk, NRSPR, Construction of a 200x50 foot garage, Location: Cochran Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/11, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as     
complete.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        James Nordstrom stated that he did not feel that a site walk was necessary.  Don Duhaime agreed.  The Chairman asked the Coordinator if there were any outstanding items on the plan.  The Coordinator replied that there were not.
        
        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Site Plan of Land of Thomas & Christine Quirk, Friendly Beaver Campground, Cochran Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/11, for the purpose of constructing a 200’ x 50’ garage for the storage of equipment associated with the campground subject to:

        CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
        1.  Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the checklist corrections and any corrections noted at this hearing;
        2.  Execution of a Site Review Agreement;
        3.  Submission of any outstanding application fees and the fees for recording the Site Review Agreement at the HCRD.
        The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be September 1, 2005, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action from the Board.  Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board map convene a hearing pursuant to 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 those improvements, a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the anticipated date 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 the 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 building shall be permitted until the site improvements as noted have been completed, and a site inspection and compliance hearing held.
        The deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be June 28, 2007, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing as noted in item #4 above.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Christine Quirk reclaimed her seat on the Board.

KAREN M. MORIN REVOCABLE TRUST  Adjourned from 5/24/05
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/5 Lots
Location: Greenfield Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/74
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Mike Dahlberg, LLS, Todd Connors, PE, and the applicant, Paul Morin.  No abutters or interested parties were present.  
        Todd Connors, PE, stated that outstanding issues noted on Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s review had been addressed since the last meeting.  He added that some carry over issues still remained along with several new comments from Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., whom he had met with the day before this meeting.  Todd Connors, PE, stated that the applicant wished to discuss two issues with the Board this evening and noted the first to be the cover depths over proposed replacement culverts on Greenfield Road.  He explained that the existing 12 inch culvert in this location frequently experienced wash outs and that Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, had previously suggested an 18 inch culvert as a replacement.  Todd Connors, PE, added that the applicant proposed two 12 inch culverts instead due to cover issues.  He noted that because new pavement would be laid on top of the existing road the grade should be raised enough to drop the new culverts into the ditchline as low as possible to meet ditch grade lines with 2.5 feet on the inlet side and 3 feet on the outlet.  Todd Connors, PE, added that Roch Larochelle had acknowledged the cover issues and had made the same inlet and outlet recommendations.  He further added that Amy Alexander had suggested a minimum 3 feet of cover with a drop inlet.  Todd Connors, PE, explained that given that scenario another foot would be lost at the right-of-way in the area of the existing stone wall as a drop inlet would push towards the fill slope.  He asked the Board’s opinion on the matter.  James Nordstrom asked if the issue involved the deviation from three feet of cover from the centerline of the road back to the proposed inlet.  Todd Connors, PE, replied that was the case and that almost 2.5 feet was across the entire road except for one shoulder noted on the opposite side that was just below 2.5 feet.  He noted that this was as deep as they could go given the existing constraints and added that 2.5 feet of cover would not compromise the strength of the pipe.  James Nordstrom stated that he would prefer 2.5 feet of cover versus a drop inlet scenario.  Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that a drop inlet would more often invite instances of leaf and branch clogging.  Todd Connors, PE, added that drop inlets were also more difficult to install and noted that their alternate proposal was consistent with comments provided by the Road Committee.  James Nordstrom stated that the crown of the existing culvert was two inches below the bottom of the pavement and that the applicant’s proposal would be a considerable improvement to that condition.  The Chairman asked where the water would flow.  Todd Connors, PE, explained that erosion below the existing culvert had created a stony bottom ditch similar to a stream channel.  Mike Dahlberg, LLS, added that the water flowed into the Morgan pond which had a dry hydrant.  James Nordstrom thought that the applicant’s proposal was a fine one.  Todd Connors, PE, stated that the applicant sought the assurance of the Board’s sentiments so that they could go back to Amy Alexander and reach an agreement on this design.  The Board gave their consensus for the applicant’s culvert proposal.
        Todd Connors, PE, stated that the next issue regarded Amy Alexander’s suggestion for a
guardrail in the location of the proposed road with a fill slope on an 8% grade curve.  He added that they explained to Amy Alexander that the 8% grade changed to 5% at this curve and because the fill slope proposed was 4:1 versus 3:1 they did not think that a guardrail was warranted.  Todd Connors, PE, explained that Amy Alexander was most concerned about the drop off to the 3:1 slope fill section but noted that this section fell outside of the curve traveling uphill to a stop sign while the drop off on the inside portion of the same curve was less.  He added that Amy Alexander, given that information, suggested that the Road Agent make the final determination.  Todd Connors, PE, asked the Board’s opinion on this matter.  Don Duhaime stated that he preferred Amy Alexander to make this determination over the Road Agent. The Chairman asked if this was the usual case.  The Coordinator replied that it was and was not and explained that if a plan proposed a guardrail it required the Town Engineer’s review but if it’s requirement was questionable the Road Agent could make such a determination as construction of the road progressed.  Todd Connors, PE, clarified that Amy Alexander had provided the same rationale.  The Chairman asked if the Road Agent had been consulted on this matter.  The Coordinator replied that he had and that it would be discussed at the preconstruction meeting.  She added that the Road Agent usually consulted the Town Engineer on such matters anyway.  James Nordstrom asked how the applicant preferred to handle the issue.  Todd Connors, PE, replied that the plan did not show a guardrail and they preferred not to have one, however, understood that changes might be required in the field which coincided with the Road Agent and Town Engineer’s responsibilities.  Paul Morin noted that in consideration of the location of the proposed subdivision and the abutter’s regard for the character of the area he guessed that they would agree that less was more and prefer no guardrail unless it was a safety requirement.  The Chairman asked if the decision on the guard rail could wait until the construction meeting was held.  The Coordinator replied that it could, however, a note should be made to the plan.  Todd, Connors, PE, stated that Amy Alexander had suggested such a note in her comment letter to the applicant.  James Nordstrom clarified that the note could say that a guardrail was not proposed, however, the Road Agent may determine that it was necessary as construction of the road ensued.
        Todd Connors, PE, stated that Amy Alexander had two or three additional comments which involved simple revisions to the plan.  He explained that the revisions involved moving an underdrain over one foot and using a solid pipe as a connection point.  Todd Connors, PE added that the Town Engineer had reviewed the bond estimate and concurred with what the applicant had submitted for offsite improvement and new road construction costs.  He added that Amy Alexander had also provided her estimate for inspection services.  James Nordstrom asked the amount of the bond estimate figure.  The Coordinator replied that it was $52,733.45 and the inspection estimate was $21,800.
        The Chairman asked how the existing daylilies which were a major concern of abutters were addressed on the plan.  Paul Morin replied that he had gone to the site and had viewed the location of the daylilies with the Woodwards and considered the extent of the proposed ditchline impacts which would most likely go up to the existing stone wall.  He explained that the areas along Greenfield Road that could be replanted were not as extensive as the existing location for the flowers, therefore, he informed the Woodwards that he would have as many lilies replanted as possible.  He noted that it was not possible at this juncture to know what could be accomplished but he would make his best effort.  Todd Connors, PE, clarified that there was already a note on the Greenfield Road improvement plan that read: “Transplant or replace existing daylilies along Greenfield Road between Station 1+00 and Station 3+50.  Match existing relative density.”  Paul Morin noted that the lilies would not be planted the entire length of Greenfield Road and would be replanted in the widest areas available.  Mike Dahlberg, LLS, added that the stations mentioned in the note were the specific stretch of road planned for the reintroduction of these plants as they would not survive in any other locations on Greenfield Road once the improvements began.   
        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan of Karen Morin Revocable Trust, Tax Map 7 Lot 74, Greenfield Road, for the subdivision of five lots, subject to:

        CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
         1.  Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,  including all checklist corrections, waivers and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
        2.  Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
        3.  Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.  
        4.  Receipt of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.'s approval of the road plans and profiles.
        5.  Submission of a Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and Dufresne-Henry, Inc., if necessary.
        6.  Submission of the language of the form of the security for review and approval by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.  (If necessary).
  7.  Submission of the security, in the amount of $52,733.45 and in a form acceptable to the Town of New Boston, for the construction of Daylily Lane as shown on the approved plans and profiles.
         8.  Submission of the estimated construction inspection fees regarding the construction of Daylily Lane, in the amount of $21,800.  A mandatory pre-construction meeting is required to be held with the developer/agent, road contractor, Town's Road Agent, and representatives of the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen, as well as the Town's consulting engineer, prior to the start of the road construction project.
        9.  Receipt of the Dredge and Fill Permit from the State of NH for the upgrade of Greenfield Road.     
      10.  Submission of executed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions regarding the installation of sprinkler systems.  The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
      11.  Submission of the language of the proposed slope and drainage easements for review and approval by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
      12.  Approval of the language of the road deed by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
      13.  Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
      14.  Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
      15.  Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
               The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be September 30, 2005, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board.  Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676: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, in accordance with Chapter NB-5.0 of the Town of New Boston Building Code before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved      subdivision.
            2.  Daylily Lane is to be constructed in accordance with the Application for Inspection and in accordance with the approved plans and profiles. After the base (binder) course of pavement is approved by the Road Agent/town's engineer, the developer will allow the road to set over one winter, during which time the developer will be liable for the road, including, but not limited to, winter maintenance thereof.  The wearing (finish) course of pavement shall be applied no later than one (1) year from                 the date of application of the binder course.  The Application for Inspection must be turned into the Planning Department after the road is 100% complete, in order to initiate final inspection and acceptance of the road, and the release of the security for                same after a compliance inspection and hearing is held.
          3.   Driveway locations shall be approved at sub-grade and driveways shall be installed through binder to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town engineer and in conformance with the Application for Inspection and approved driveway permits.
     4.   Per Subdivision Regulations Section V-S, 1, J), As-Built plans showing the final  construction details, in the form of three paper print copies and one electronic file, certified by the applicant's engineer that the layout of the line and grade of all public  improvements is in accordance with the approved construction plans of the subdivision, shall be submitted for review by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy within the subdivision.
          5.  Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F,3 (if any changes have taken place since the recording of the mylar).      
          6.  Submission of executed Deeds of Easement to the Town of New Boston for any slope and/or drainage easement areas identified on the plans.  The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
          7.  Submission of executed Warranty Deed for Daylily Lane.  The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
          8.  Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD.  (If necessary.)
          9.  The applicant shall install road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) to the satisfaction of the Road Agent.
        10.  Driveway permits must be approved for completed acceptable installation by the Road Agent and Planning Board prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy (CO's) for the related lots.
        11.  Completion of the off-site road improvements for Greenfield Road in accordance with the approved plans.
        12.  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.
       13.  Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD.
                       The deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be September 1, 2007, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing to be held on the application.  Prior to the acceptance of the completed road by the Town, an acceptable two year maintenance bond must be submitted by the applicant for the road in the amount of10% of the performance bond value. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the Conditional Use Permit application as complete, and to grant the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of Karen Morin Revocable Trust, to effect one (1) wetland crossing at approximate sta. 7+50 on property on Daylily Lane, known as Tax Map/Lot #7/74, as the four conditions for granting the Permit have been found to exist, subject to the following conditions:
        
        CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
        1.  Submission of the financial security for the wetland crossing installation as part of the   total amount of the bond as noted in Condition Precedent # 7 in the Board's motion to approve the subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #7/74.
        The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be September 30, 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:
        1.  Completion of the site improvements as related to the one (1) wetland crossing, as shown on the approved construction design plan. The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon notification to the Planning Department by the applicants 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, 2007.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

          James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the Conditional Use Permit application as complete, and to grant the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of Karen Morin Revocable Trust, to effect one (1) wetland crossing at approximate sta. 5+00                  for improvements to Greenfield Road, as the four conditions for granting the Permit have been found to exist, subject to the following conditions:

        CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
        1.  Submission of the financial security for the wetland crossing installation as part of the total amount of the bond as noted in Condition Precedent # 7 in the Board's motion to approve the subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #7/74.
        The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be September 30, 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:
1.  Completion of the site improvements as related to the one (1) wetland crossing, as shown on the approved construction design plan.
             The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon notification to the Planning Department by the applicants 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, 2007.
                  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Road Entry Permit Application #05-024, Tax Map/Lot #7/74, for proposed Daylily Lane, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the new road shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be  applied to the road; the new road intersection with Greenfield Road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the new road shall intersect with Greenfield Road at an angle of 60-90 degrees.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and         it PASSED unanimously.

BOLTON, CHRISTOPHER (OWNER)
LAMBERT, WILL (APPLICANT)       
Compliance 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.  No abutters or interested parties were present.
        In response to a question from James Nordstrom, the Coordinator explained that all compliance items had been addressed prior to the signing of the Site Review Agreement which made that document moot.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm that Christopher Bolton (owner) and Will Lambert (applicant) have complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to operate a landscaping material supply business on Hemlock Drive and NH   Route 114 a/k/a North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/52-26 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

SUSANA LECLAIR REVOCABLE TRUST  Adjourned from 5/24/05
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/6 Lots
Location: Bedford Road
Tax Map/Lot #9/24
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

                The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Mike Dahlberg, LLS, who represented the applicant.  Also present were abutters, Dick and Betsy Moody.
        The Chairman stated that there were no outstanding issues with the plan.  He added that Jed Callen, Esq., who was the legal counsel for Dick and Betsy Moody had submitted a letter to the Board stating that the Town was in violation of the “Right to Know” law by having a site walk on the applicant’s property and not allowing abutters to attend and that the site walk was a quorum of the Planning Board for the purpose of gathering information.  The Chairman stated that it was the opinion of the Board and Town Counsel that the Board’s Rules of Procedure clearly supported the Board in conducting site walks this way and balancing the need for the site walk with the property owner’s rights.  He asked Dick and Betsy Moody if they had any questions regarding this issue.  Dick Moody replied that he did not.  The Chairman clarified that no decisions or substantial discussions regarding a subdivision’s application occurred during site walks held by members of the Board but rather at public meetings.  Dick Moody asked why abutters were not allowed on the site walk.  The Chairman replied that in some cases an applicant might be nervous about liability and privacy issues especially if abutters were not in favor of the plan proposed.  He added that this was not unheard of and that abutters were allowed on site walks at the applicant’s discretion.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Susana LeClair Revocable Trust,      Major Subdivision, 6 Lots, Location: Bedford Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/24, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it             PASSED unanimously.

        The Chairman asked Mike Dahlberg, LLS, if he had met with the Moodys on the site regarding the location of the driveway for Lot #9/24-15 and the marking of existing scenic trees.  Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that he had and that the trees were located and added to the plan with an 8.5x11 inch blow up.  He added that none of the large trees identified were in the location of the proposed driveway for Lot #9/24-15.  The Chairman asked the Moodys if they were satisfied with the driveway issue.  Dick Moody replied that he was but wished to add that the existing stone wall in the area of the proposed driveway entrance did not have a gap as was discussed at a previous meeting.  Betsy Moody added that the only break in the wall existed at the proposed location of the house for the Lot.  Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that he did not recall any large stones in the location of the driveway entrance at the stone wall.
        Dick Moody stated that he feared that this proposed location of the driveway for Lot #9/24-15 would devalue the property on Baker Lane which he believed to be a scenic road.  The Chairman noted that because these lots were up for sale to developers the Moodys might have the opportunity to discuss their concerns with the potential buyer of that Lot who could share the same sentiment and be convinced to move the driveway.  He noted that he considered the proposed location of the driveway to be the most logical but understood the Moodys’ concerns.  Betsy Moody noted that Baker Lane was not wide enough at that location for two cars to pass each other.  The Chairman replied that he would rather see cars back up to accomplish that task in contrast to removing trees from the property.  James Nordstrom asked if Baker Lane was considered a Class V right-of-way to the point of the proposed driveway for Lot #9/24-15.  The Chairman replied that it was considered a Class V roadway to the existing barn.  Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that 150 feet beyond the turn in the road the Class V portion ended at the “door yard” noted on the Moody’s property on the plan.
        Betsy Moody referenced points made in Attorney Callen’s letter as she believed the Board had changed the location of the proposed driveway for Lot #9/24/15 when the site walk was held.  The Chairman replied that he recalled discussing options for the driveway’s entrance and inspected wetland locations but never modified plans during site walks.  James Nordstrom thought that the Board had viewed alternate locations for the driveway entrance.  The Chairman added that the Board also considered sight distances for all the proposed driveways on Bedford Road and Baker Lane.
                James Nordstrom asked if all the required State permits and submittals were in for the application.  The Chairman replied that they were.

                James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Major Subdivision Plan of Land for Susana Leclair Revocable Trust for 6 Lots on Bedford Road, Wilson Hill Roads & Baker Lane, Tax Map/Lot #9/24, 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.   Approval of the language of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions regarding the installation of sprinkler systems in each house in the subdivision and deed language that would incorporate that requirement, by Town Counsel, the cost of     which shall be borne by the applicant.
           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.   Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
            7.   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 September 30,   2005, confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board.  Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.     

                        CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
         1.  Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwelling in  the approved subdivision.
                        Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.      
                        
                        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application as complete, and to grant the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of Susana Leclair Revocable Trust to dredge & fill 3,267 s.f. of poorly drained soils for the construction of a driveway on                  property on Wilson Hill and Bedford Roads, known as Tax Map/Lot #9/24 as the four 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 $16,066.49 and in a form of that is acceptable to the Town of New Boston.
          2.  Any revisions to the site plan as decided by the Board at the hearing (if applicable).

          The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be December 30, 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:
          1.  Completion of the site improvements as related to the filling of 3,267 s.f. of poorly drained soils for driveway construction, as shown on the approved construction design plan.
        The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon notification to the Planning Department 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 June 30, 2007.
        Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        The Chairman stated that because the proposed driveway for Lot #9/24-14 off Bedford Road entered into the road at a positive angle it would require a final inspection by the Board to assure that it satisfied Town regulations.  Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that was acceptable.  He asked if the potential owner of that Lot wished to construct the driveway prior to building the house if the Board should be notified to inspect it.  The Chairman replied that was correct.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #’s 05-18 through 05-22, for proposed driveways, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: With the exception of Lot #9/24-15, the driveways shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveways to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road; all driveway intersections with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees.  As part of the approval of Permit #05-020 for Tax Map/Lot #9/24-14, it is stipulated that a member of the Planning Board or its designee shall do a final inspection on the constructed driveway to confirm that it is in compliance with the Driveway Regulations.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        At 10:18 p.m. Christine Quirk MOVED to adjourn. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

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