The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Bob Furey; ex-officio Gordon Carlstrom; 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, Roch Larochelle, Kim DiPietro, Carol Hess, James and Wilma Dane, Jed Callen, Roger Dignard, Bob Todd, LLS, Brandy Mitroff, John Greenwood, Joe Thompson, Frank & SueEllen Billecci, and Greg Crocker.
The Chairman appointed Don Duhaime as a full voting member in Travis Daniels' absence.
DONALD E. GARRETSON (APPLICANT/OWNER) Adjourned from 6/28/05
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. He noted that the applicant had requested that this hearing be rescheduled to the next available meeting date.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Donald E. Garretson & 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 August 23, 2005, at 7:15 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2005
1. DANE, JAMES & WILMA
HESS, CAROL L.
Submission of Application/Planning Board to act
without holding a hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: 184 Francestown Road & Pine Echo Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/6 & 5/7
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman stated that the above item was on the agenda for 8:30 p.m. this evening.
2. Approval of the minutes of June 28, 2005, with or without changes. (Distributed at the July 14, 2005, meeting.)
Bob Furey questioned the usage of the word “queried” in the fourth line of page 7: “He queried that construction on the Lot might be difficult if a more permanent barricade was installed”. While technically correct, he thought that another verb might be better suited in this sentence. The Board determined that the word "queried" should be replaced with "wondered if".
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of June 2, 2005, as amended. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Schedule a compliance site walk for Roger Dignard, Dignard Architectural Services, to add home office, Tax Map/Lot #13/50, 146 South Hill Road.
Roger Dignard was present in the audience. The Chairman asked him when he would like to schedule a compliance site walk for his plan. Roger Dignard replied that he thought the site would be ready by August 13, 2005, so that a formal compliance hearing could be scheduled for the Board’s meeting of August 23, 2005. He added that he would inform the Planning Department no later than August 9, 2005, if the site work would not be done in time for the compliance site walk.
A compliance site walk was scheduled for August 13, 2005, at 8:30 a.m.
4. Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for Harvey J. Dupuis Family Trust, Richard Dupuis & Jaqueline Smith, Trustees, Tax Map/Lot #12/93 & 93-22, Carriage Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman endorsed the above noted Subdivision Agreement.
5. Driveway Permit Application for Clifton LaBree, 126 Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #/21, for the Board’s approval.
The Coordinator explained that the above address had two driveways off Wilson Hill Road and that the owner wanted to start using the newer driveway which was closer to Byam Road, however, the house number was associated with the older driveway closer to Bedford Road. She added that John Bunting said that the Fire Department needed to have the address number correct for the corresponding driveway(s). The Coordinator further added that there was currently no Permit for the newer driveway. The Chairman asked if there was a cemetery located between the two driveway entrances. The Coordinator clarified that a small cemetery plot did exist between the two driveways. The Chairman asked if the owner intended to maintain both driveways. The Coordinator replied
that he did. The Chairman then asked what the distance was between the two entrances. The Coordinator replied that it was greater than the Driveway Regulation that required a secondary driveway to be further than 200 feet from the primary driveway. James Nordstrom clarified that in this case the distance appeared to be approximately 800 feet.
The Chairman stated that he had no issue with approving a Permit for the newer driveway. Members of the Board were in agreement. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the owner intended to use both driveways on his property. The Coordinator replied that he did, however, the house number would correspond with the newer driveway while the older drive would be used as a secondary access. Gordon Carlstrom stated that it was confusing for the Fire Department when address numbers did not match corresponding driveways.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #05-045, for, Tax Map/Lot #9/21, 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. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6a. A copy of a letter dated July 14, 2005, from David G. Walker, PE, Bedford Design Consultants, Inc., to Nicola Strong, New Boston Planning Board, Re: Extension request to conditions precedent for Waldorf Estates, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that this item involved an extension request regarding the Subdivision Plan for Lot #8/84-30, which was to be subdivided into two lots. She added that the applicant had requested an extension date to July 27, 2005. James Nordstrom stated that the date requested was unrealistic and would not suit their purpose. The Chairman suggested an extension of 60 days. James Nordstrom asked if the conditions precedent item which prompted the extension request merely involved the submittal of the plans. The Coordinator replied that was correct.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the extension of the conditions precedent for Seff Enterprises & Holdings, LLC, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Foxberry Drive Tax Map/Lot #8/24-30, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to September 15, 2005.
Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6b. A copy of a letter dated July 12, 2005, from J.A. Foistner, Esq., to Nicola Strong, New Boston Planning Board, Re: Dufresne-Henry, Inc., letter dated June 23, 2005, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that this item was related to item 6c and that the applicant was requesting that the silt fencing on site be kept in place in contrast to the Town Engineer’s suggestion that it be removed prior to lot construction. She added that Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had noted that she would not object to the silt fence remaining in place as long as it was properly maintained. Gordon Carlstrom thought that was a reasonable compromise. James Nordstrom stated that maintenance of the silt fence was the key. The Chairman noted that because everything in front of the fencing should now be stabilized minimal maintenance should be needed. The Coordinator asked how long a silt fence could remain in place before it became a problem to
remove. James Nordstrom replied that silt fencing was held in place with pine stakes that lost their intended ability after approximately one year. The Chairman clarified that any maintenance of the silt fence would be the applicant’s responsibility. He noted that this applicant had never experienced any wash out issues in the past with silt fencing and thought that the responsibility of the maintenance was understood. The Board gave their consensus to allow the silt fence to remain in place during lot construction.
6c. A copy of an Email received July 18, 2005, from J.A. Foistner, Esq., to Nicola Strong, New Boston Planning Board, Re: Waldorf Estates, Silt Fence, was distributed for the Board’s information.
This item was addressed in item 6b.
7. A copy of a faxed letter dated July 18, 2005, from Amy Alexander, Development Projects Coordinator, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, New Boston Planning Board, Re: Morin Subdivision, Final Review, was distributed for the Board’s information.
8. Discussion of the Regional Plan Questionnaire from SNHPC, distributed at the meeting of July 12, 2005.
The Board reviewed each item in the above questionnaire and reached a consensus on the answers.
9. Discussion Re: Driveway, Tax Map/Lot #2/98, Middle Branch Road.
12. Driveway Permit Application for Donald and Kathleen Prouty, Tax Map/Lot #2/98, Middle Branch and Saunders Hill Roads, for the Board’s approval. (Drive by prior to meeting.)
The Coordinator explained that item #9 was related to item #12 and regarded a driveway that had frontage on a Class VI rather than a Class V roadway, which was prohibited by Zoning according to Town Counsel. She added that the Building Inspector had denied the Building Permit, however, in order for the applicants to apply for a variance with the ZBA, the Planning Board, procedurally, needed to deny the Driveway Permit.
Bob Furey MOVED to deny Driveway Permit Application #05-046, due to the lack of frontage the property held on a Class V roadway. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
10. Announcement: 2005 Fall Planning and Zoning Conference Announcement, Saturday, November 5, 2005, The Mountain Club on Loon, Lincoln, NH, for the Board’s information.
11. Distribution of the minutes of July 12, 2005, for approval at the meeting of August 9, 2005, with or without changes.
13. Driveway Permit Application for Thibeault Corporation of NE, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-45, Inkberry Road, for the Board’s approval. (Drive by prior to meeting).
Don Duhaime stated that upon viewing the site he did not think that any loaming or seeding had been done. He added that the headwalls needed work. James Nordstrom noted that the Board needed to consider the slope and guardrail further up on the site when considering the Driveway Permit Application. The Coordinator clarified that the CUP compliance for the same lot was scheduled later in the evening which would concern Don Duhaime’s observations, and that this item did not involve the compliance of the driveway because a Driveway Permit had never been issued. She added that the Board could consider adding a guardrail requirement to the standard requirements of acceptance as they had previously discussed their preference for a guardrail down the side of this
driveway. James Nordstrom thought that the applicant intended to add the guardrail for the driveway to the plan. The Coordinator stated that the applicant was aware that this was a requirement. The Planning Assistant clarified that the applicant had informed her that the guardrail for the driveway would be installed. Gordon Carlstrom asked if this meant that the guardrail was installed before the Driveway Permit Application was approved by the Board. The Coordinator replied that the guardrail installation was intended for the purpose of getting the road accepted, however, the barricade required for the driveway entrance had been deemed unacceptable and the road was not found to be in compliance at a previous meeting.
Don Duhaime asked if the CUP compliance for the wetland crossing should be addressed before the Driveway Permit Application. The Chairman replied that the applicant could have a Driveway Permit and build the wetland crossing for this lot first, however, the Board would not necessarily approve the driveway as complete before the wetland crossing was constructed. He added that the Board’s authorization for the Lot’s driveway construction was necessary for the project to ensue.
Bob Furey asked if the installation of a jersey barrier at the entrance to Lot #6/41-45’s driveway had been discussed at the previous meeting which he had not attended. The Chairman replied that it was the consensus of the Board that a jersey barrier would be appropriate if the Lot were not under construction and continued to sit vacant as in the past, however, because there
was active construction currently, that type of barricade was not sensible. He added that he had relayed this information to the applicant. The Chairman further added that if a vehicle traveled uphill on Inkberry Road they would need to take a deliberate left hand turn onto this driveway to be at risk. The Chairman further added that the applicant was liable for the safety factor of the driveway as a vehicle could cross out of the right-of-way onto the property. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the guardrail should be required as part of the Driveway Permit Approval. The Chairman stated that guardrails should be required along the edge of the driveway in any locations where the slope exceeded 3:1. Gordon Carlstrom suggested that this involved areas from the upper wetland crossing on the Lot down to
Inkberry Road. James Nordstrom asked the Coordinator what Town Counsel’s advice had been on this scenario. The Coordinator replied that the Town had a slope maintenance easement for that section of the driveway and a release of liability. She added that Bill Drescher, Esq., had said that the Town should still take claim to the safety factors involved and that requesting guardrails along the driveway would be a legitimate requirement of the Board.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #047-02, for, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-45, 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. As part of the approval it is stipulated that a guardrail shall be installed alongside any edge along the driveway that exceeded a 3:1 slope. Bob Furey seconded
the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
14. Schedule a compliance site walk for Indian Falls, LLC, Conditional Use Permit, Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/89.
A compliance site walk was scheduled for August 13, 2005, at 9:00 a.m.
15. Schedule a compliance site walk for David and Susan Lyons, Conditional Use Permit, Laurel Lane, Tax Map/Lot #12/106.
A compliance site walk was scheduled for August 13, 2005, at 9:30 a.m.+/-.
16. Endorsement of a Site Plan Agreement for Roger Dignard, Tax Map/Lot #13/50, South Hill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman endorsed the above noted Site Plan Agreement.
17. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Franklin and Dorothy Fillmore, Tax Map/Lot
#14/36 & 14/36-1, Jessica Lane, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Coordinator suggested that this endorsement could be done later in the meeting as multiple sheets needed signatures. The Chairman agreed.
18. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Michael and Janie Boyle, Tax Map/Lot #14/56-7 & 14/58, Joe English Road and Barss Drive, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Coordinator suggested that this endorsement could be done later in the meeting as multiple sheets needed signatures. The Chairman agreed.
19. A copy of a letter dated July 20, 2005, from Bill Drescher, Esq., to Michele Brown, Re: Seff Enterprises, Temporary Construction Easement for Tax Map/Lot #8/84-30, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Chairman agreed with Town Counsel’s recommendations that the proposed easement was not temporary since it could be reactivated for repair and maintenance of the bridge and changes should, therefore, be made to address this fact. Gordon Carlstrom agreed in light of the fact that the applicant seemed to be looking for a permanent limited easement versus a temporary easement.
20. A copy of a letter dated July 15, 2005, from Nicole Rowan, to Peter Hogan, Planning Board Chairman and to other various committees/departments, Re; Byam Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to send an application for alternate Planning Board member to Ms. Rowan.
21a. A copy of a letter dated July 26, 2005, from George and Carol Merrill, to the Board, Re: extension to conditions subsequent for the construction of their storage buildings, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Chairman asked the length of the extension request. The Coordinator replied that the request was for a two year extension. The Chairman recalled that this time frame was mentioned by the applicants at the time of their Site Plan Review as the construction would be addressed in phases.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the extension request for George and Carol Merrill, to November, 2007. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
21b. Schedule a compliance site walk for George and Carol Merrill, building #6 storage building, Whipplewill Road and NH Route 114, Tax Map/Lot #3/63-13.
A compliance site walk was scheduled for August 13, 2005, at 9:45 a.m.+/-.
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC. Adjourned from 6/28/05
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, and the applicant, Rick Martin. Two unidentified interested parties were also present.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that outstanding checklist item #’s 7, 9 and 11 had been addressed in note #’s 13, 14 and 15 of the revised plan. He added that he did not know if Town Counsel had yet reviewed the condominium documents related to the plan. The Coordinator replied that this review was still pending. James Nordstrom asked if Town Counsel had given any indication as to how his review of these documents was progressing. The Coordinator replied that Town Counsel was currently reviewing various items for the Planning Board and that she had not heard anything back from him that specifically regarded the applicant’s documents. The Chairman asked if this review need to be completed before the Board could move forward with considerations for the
application. The Coordinator replied that it was up to the Board. She added that the applicant's attorney had requested in a letter to the Board that they consider a conditional approval of the application given the fact that Town Counsel’s review of the legal documents was still pending. Gordon Carlstrom asked if this consideration had ever been given for other applications. The Coordinator replied that applications had been conditionally approved pending the completed review of other types of legal documents, however, this was the first case of a pending review of legal documents for a condex. Don Duhaime stated that he thought the Board should wait for the completion of Town Counsel’s review in case an outstanding issue arose. James Nordstrom noted that if that scenario occurred then the Board’s conditional approval would be considered void by default. The Chairman added that it was the applicant who was placing himself
in a compromising position with a conditional approval of this nature. Rick Martin replied that his attorney specialized in condominium law and he was confident that the documents would pass Town Counsel’s review as they were a standard format.
Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the applicant could always apply for a Building Permit for a duplex and convert it to a condex in the future. Rick Martin stated that he preferred to keep the process more streamlined and not confuse the issue. James Nordstrom asked if this was the Town’s first case of a condex approval. The Coordinator replied that one other instance was before the Building Department but never made it to the Planning Board phase.
The Chairman read a portion of the applicant’s letter to the Board: “As you know the office represents Right Way Builders on Right Way Builder’s behalf. This letter formally requests that the New Boston Planning Board consider accepting the above referenced Site Plan Application as complete subject to the applicant’s compliance to any of the revisions to the Condominium Declarations and By Laws that may be requested by Town Counsel.” He clarified that the applicant would be willing to abide by whatever recommendations, if any, were offered by Town Counsel upon his review of the documents. James Nordstrom noted that the application had already been accepted as complete. The Coordinator noted that the second paragraph of the
applicant’s letter referred to the approval of the application. James Nordstrom added that the applicant’s attorney had referenced State law that would give the Board the ability to grant the conditional approval, therefore, the majority of risk was on the applicant. Gordon Carlstrom, Bob Furey and Douglas Hill stated that they agreed.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Condominium Subdivision and Site Plan, Unit A & Unit B, Right Way Builders, Inc., Tax Map/Lot #5/52-1, Beard Road, 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. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Receipt of Town Counsel’s approval of the Declaration of Condominium Covenants;
4. Execution of a Site Review Agreement;
5. 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 30, 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 July 26, 2006, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing as noted in item #4 above. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
22. A copy of a memorandum dated July 26, 2005, from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, to the Board and various other departments, Re: 13-15 Hopkins Road, Inc., Off-Site Road Improvements, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., was working on the road plan review at which time Amy Alexander noticed a note on the plan which read: “Site distance shall be 400’ according to offsite improvements.” The Coordinator noted that the offsite improvements were agreed to by the Selectmen and the Road Agent with the applicant onsite, therefore, were not engineered and presented to the Board which meant that the Town Engineer was not required to review them. She asked the Board if they thought the Town Engineer should review these offsite improvements or should only concentrate on the intersection of the new proposed road on the plan with the existing Town road. The Coordinator added that Amy Alexander suggested that the offsite
improvements should be completed before any CO’s were issued as an existing knoll offsite would affect sight distance from the proposed road. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the Town Engineer should review the offsite improvements. James Nordstrom noted that the issue involved the absence of a plan for these improvements. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he would contact the Town Administrator the following day and have him contact the Planning Department regarding this issue. He added that some type of plan should be required for the offsite improvements. The Coordinator noted a memo that mentioned tree clearing, grubbing and shaving the existing knoll and paving the proposed road and that the Road Agent would prepare this list of items and any other items to be addressed. Don Duhaime thought that an applicant was responsible to employ a design engineer for this purpose including sight distance issues. Gordon Carlstrom agreed but noted
that the Road Agent’s involvement was also necessary. James Nordstrom asked if the acceptance of the application had involved any conditions subsequent for offsite plans. The Coordinator replied they had not. Gordon Carlstrom reiterated that a formal offsite improvement plan was necessary, however, the list of items to address on this plan was needed first. James Nordstrom thought that this requirement should have been addressed in the approval. The Coordinator stated that this scenario was somewhat unusual as a meeting occurred onsite with the Road Agent and Town Administrator who agreed to the items for offsite improvements with the applicant.
23. Received a Minimum Impact Expedited Application on July 25, 2005, from John Riendeau, New Boston Road Agent, for Bog Brook Road, for the Board’s information.
24a. A copy of a letter dated July 18, 2005, from NH DOT, to Geoffrey Katz, Re: driveway permit, was distributed for the Board’s information.
24b. A copy of a letter received July 25, 2005, from Geoffrey Katz, to the Board, Re: Apple Barn office spaces, was distributed for the Board’s information.
25. A copy of a letter dated July 22, 2005, from Jack Munn, Southern NH Planning Commission, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Review of Steep Slopes Ordinance and proposed Driveway Regulations, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that the first part of this letter was moot as the Steep Slopes Committee was already reworking the Ordinance which Jack Munn had reviewed. She added that the Board should, however, review Mr. Munn’s comments on the Driveway Regulations. Bob Furey noted that the Driveway Regulations required sight distance of 300’ but had discussed plans where 400 feet was called for. James Nordstrom noted that road entries and driveway entries had different sight distance requirements and that sight distance was a product of speed. Douglas Hill added that in some cases scenic vegetation could be lost to maintain the minimum sight distance requirement and that the Board should consider not requiring this minimum distance in all cases. James
Nordstrom noted that if sight distances were not required by the Town it could become a liability. Douglas Hill stated that there were no sight distance requirements for any other Town in New Hampshire other than for State roads. Bob Furey replied that this was not a reason to continue a poor practice. James Nordstrom pointed out that many other NH towns specified a sight distance for driveways.
26. Read Only: Letter dated July 18, 2005, from David Preece, Southern NH Planning Commission, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: 2006 Local Source Water Protection Grant.
DANE, JAMES & WILMA
HESS, CAROL L.
Submission of Application/Planning Board to act
without holding a hearing
Location: 184 Francestown Road & Pine Echo Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/6 & 5/7
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The applicants, James and Wilma Dane and Carol Hess were present in the audience. Also present was Carol Hess’ spouse, Jed Callen.
The Chairman stated that because the waiver requests on the application and the 11” x 17” copies of the plan were not submitted within fifteen days prior to the last meeting held with the applicant, it had been adjourned to tonight’s meeting. He added that there had been no other issues with the application and assumed that was still the case. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the plans had been updated. The Chairman replied that they had been updated for the previous meeting but were not submitted before the statutory time frame required, therefore, tonight’s meeting was necessary for the Board’s action.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waivers requested for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies and Driveway Permit Application. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to accept the application of James and Wilma Dane and Carol L. Hess, Location: 184 Francestown Road and Pine Echo Road, Tax Map/lot #5/6 & 5/7, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if all the checklist items had been addressed by the applicant. The Coordinator replied that a letter submitted by the applicant stated that all outstanding items would be revised on the final plan.
Bob Furey MOVED to approve the Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan of James H. and Wilma M. Dane and Carol L. Hess, N.H. Route 136 a/k/a Francestown Road and Pine Echo Road, that adjusts the lot lines between Tax Map/Lot #5/6 and #5/7 such that the acreage of Tax Map/Lot #5/6 is reduced from 17.275 acres to 14.025 acres and the acreage of Tax Map/Lot #5/7 is increased from 8.030 acres to 11.286 acres, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of three (3) 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 any outstanding fees;
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be August 26, 2005, the 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.
17. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Franklin and Dorothy Fillmore, Tax Map/Lot #14/36 & 14/36-1, Jessica Lane, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Vice Chairman (in the Secretary’s absence) signed the above noted Subdivision Plan.
18. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Michael and Janie Boyle, Tax Map/Lot #14/56-7 & 14/58, Joe English Road and Barss Drive, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Vice Chairman (in the Secretary’s absence) signed the above noted Subdivision Plan.
AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC.
Public Hearing/Revocation
Major Site Plan/Public Wireless Service Facility
Location: 7 Meetinghouse Road
Tax Map/Lot #18/36
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. An abutter present was Jim Ryan.
The Chairman stated that the applicant had no objection to the revocation which was clarified in a letter submitted to the Board by Thomas Welch, Esq., who represented Cingular and AT&T. He added that because the conditions precedent and subsequent were not met after repeated extensions from the Board the applicant had informed the Board that they would not be going forward with their proposal.
James Nordstrom MOVED to revoke the Non-Residential Site Plan for AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (applicant) and Joseph and Marion Thompson (owner), Proposal: to install a personal wireless facility, on Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/35 in the Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, as the Conditions Precedent as listed in the Notice of Decision of October 14, 2004, with a deadline date of January 15, 2004, extended to October 1, 2004, March 1, 2005 and July 22, 2005, have not been completed. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
R.J. MOREAU COMMUNITIES, LLC
Compliance Hearing/Conditional Use Permits/1 Wetland Crossing
Location: Inkberry Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/41-45
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant, John Greenwood. Interested parties present were Frank and Sue Ellen Billecci and Greg Crocker.
Douglas Hill stated that he had not viewed the site. Don Duhaime noted that he had and stated that there did not appear to be any loam or seed down on the side slopes and the head walls needed attention. He added that he did not think an approval should be given as the site still needed substantial work. James Nordstrom agreed with Don Duhaime’s observations and stated that no vegetation was growing on the side slopes or areas crossing the wetland which seemed to be encumbered by substantial roots and organic matter which would make it difficult to establish turf. He added that the pre-cast headwalls appeared to be 24” with a 15" diameter pipe which could cause water to migrate through the gaps and undermine the driveway. Bob Furey agreed and
noted that while there was adequate silt fencing on the left side of the driveway there did not appear to be any on the right towards the inlet.
SueEllen Billecci stated that she was concerned that the construction activity would cross over her property line which was why she and her husband had it resurveyed and staked. She added that the construction was quite close to these stakes and she wanted the property boundaries adhered to. Greg Crocker stated that he was not an abutter but resided on Inkberry Road and did not want any hazardous conditions present regarding the driveway for Lot #6/41-45.
John Greenwood stated that he was unsure about the status of the culvert piping and headwall opening mentioned by James Nordstrom but noted that in the case of Bob Furey’s comments the plan did not show a requirement for silt fencing place upstream. He added that any erosion would not travel in that direction and that the wetlands were adequately defined on the Septic Plan. John Greenwood further noted that the seed may have been washed away on the side slopes by rain, however, if they were holding then the intent was served. The Chairman stated that the site was not in compliance because vegetation should have been established. He suggested that the applicant check the culvert pipe openings and inform the Planning Department when the site work was addressed. The Chairman noted that if the construction of the driveway was also complete at that time then its compliance could also be addressed.
John Greenwood asked if the Driveway Permit Application had been approved for the Lot. The Chairman replied that it had been acted on earlier in the evening. John Greenwood stated that he would check the culvert pipe openings and reseed the slopes if necessary. James Nordstrom cautioned that seed spread at this time of year would need to be heavily mulched.
Gordon Carlstrom noted that the extension deadline was July 30, 2005 and would need to be extended again.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to extend the deadline of the conditions subsequent to
October 30, 2005. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman reiterated that if the wetland crossing and driveway construction were completed at the same time then compliance could be done on both. He asked when the guard rails were being installed along the driveway as stipulated by the Board. John Greenwood replied that the guard rails would be installed as soon as possible. The Chairman asked who would be responsible for their maintenance. John Greenwood replied that the driveway guardrail would need to be maintained by the property owners. The Chairman stated that this should be noted on the plan and any relevant deeds.
Greg Crocker asked when mail delivery would begin on Inkberry Road and if the driveway construction of Lot #6/41-45 was responsible for the delay. The Planning Assistant replied that the Selectmen could not accept Inkberry Road until Lot #6/41-45’s driveway was completed. The Coordinator added that the mail delivery was a Post Office issue where they would not allow mail delivery on a road in the Town that had not been accepted.
Greg Crocker asked for clarification of the delay in mail delivery to Inkberry Road. The Chairman explained that safety issues regarding the driveway entrance to Lot #6/41-45 needed to be resolved before the road could be accepted so that mail delivery could begin. He noted that the Post Office’s policy was not to begin delivery until that time. The Chairman further noted that if the entrance were sufficiently barricaded, for example, with a jersey barrier then the road could have been accepted, however, this was not a realistic option as construction was taking place on the Lot.
Frank Billecci stated that it was frustrating to not have mail delivery on the road and not be able to get to the Post Office during business hours. He asked if they might consider remaining open later than their current schedule. The Board did not think that was a likely option.
The Chairman explained that once compliance was confirmed by the Board the recommendation of acceptance of Inkberry Road could be forwarded to the Selectmen who would then notify the Post Office.
At 9:15 p.m. Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to adjourn. James Nordstrom seconded the
motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien, Minutes Approved:
Recording Clerk
| 
