New Boston, NH - Planning Board Minutes 11/22/2005

Planning Board Minutes 11/22/2005

Minutes of the Planning Board

November 22, 2005

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom and Travis Daniels; ex-officio Dave Woodbury; and, alternates Don Duhaime and Douglas Hill. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.

Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Bob Todd, LLS, Brandy Mitroff, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Pat Panciocco, Esq., Rick Martin, Roch Larochelle, Tom Clapp, Mark Anderson, Christine and Andrzej Pedzik, Dave Elliot, Mitch Larochelle, Neil Smith, Pat Golding, Kim Burkhamer, Willard Dodge, Bill Weston, Paul Sizemore, Bob LeClair, Matt Haddad, David Moore and Jonathan Willard.

WORKMAN, JANE L. & JOHN P. Adjourned from 11/08/05

Submission of Application/Public Hearing

Major Subdivision/2 Lots

Location: Pine and Thornton Roads

Tax Map/Lot #4/41

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, who represented the applicant. No abutters were present. Interested parties present were Brandy Mitroff and Roch Larochelle, Road Committee.

Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he had not been in attendance for the applicant’s previous meeting with the Board, however, he understood that at that time the waivers requested had been granted and the application had been accepted as complete. He added that a site walk had since been held with members of the Board, the bounds had been set and the Driveway Permit Application had been submitted. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the driveway was proposed in the center of the lot’s frontage with greater than 200’ of sight distance in either direction. He added that the existing home west of the site had a well that could not be located but noted the location of the abutting Humphries’ lot, its house and well on the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that there were no other abutters within 200’ of the site.

The Chairman asked if the Board had any comments regarding the site walk that was recently conducted. Dave Woodbury asked if drainage concerns on Pine Road should be considered and how future development behind the proposed subdivision could further exacerbate that issue. The Chairman replied that future subdivision was not being considered at this time. James Nordstrom clarified that there were no definitive plans for the remaining acreage of the site. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was correct and that the applicants did not want to eliminate future options by eliminating access to the backland, however, had no plans at this time to further develop the remaining acreage. The Chairman asked how many lots could be subdivided from the remaining acreage. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that 3 or 4 lots could most likely be subdivided. The Chairman noted that if 3 more lots were added in the future, upgrades to Pine Road and its drainage would be required. He added that while he did not think that the current driveway proposed warranted any extensive road work to Pine Road he felt it worthy to note that the current runoff which traveled across it could likely affect the proposed driveway and should be a consideration of the plan. Dave Woodbury wondered if it would be more

appropriate to address the drainage issues on Pine Road now or once the remaining acreage was developed which he felt would happen at some point in the future. He added that it was inconceivable to think that the access for any future lots from this site would be off Thornton Road which left Pine Road as the only option. James Nordstrom stated that there was an isolated drainage issue near the proposed driveway entrance and was unsure if this application was the opportunity to fix that problem as they were only dealing with one frontage lot. He noted in addition, that he was unsure of the future geometry and alignment of a road that could go through the existing 50’ strip for future development. The Chairman noted that the issue would be how to channel the runoff across the road. James Nordstrom added that large trees would need to be removed from the edge of the traveled road to the existing right-of-way in order to do anything now and he was unsure how the proposed subdivision of one lot could contribute to that. The Chairman agreed and noted that the water runoff would somehow need to flow onto the proposed lot. Bob Todd, LLS, concurred and added that in consideration of the drainage issue that had been observed the flow onto the lot would need to be addressed and the water would need to be diverted to either side of the proposed driveway’s apron to avoid icing. He thought that the time to consider upgrades to Pine Road along with a solution to the drainage issue would be when a future access was constructed to the remaining acreage. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the currently proposed lot could be considered without any drainage detriments.

Interested party Brandy Mitroff stated that she lived nearby and was familiar with the site as a resident of Thornton Road. She asked if runoff due to clearing done on the Aksten property was contributing to the drainage issues on Pine Road. Bob Todd, LLS, noted the location of the Aksten property on the plan and agreed that runoff flowed down that property and over Pine Road as a result of that clearing. Brandy Mitroff stated that there was not a runoff problem in the past until the Aksten’s lower field was cleared. She added that Thornton Road had been rebuilt three times since that clearing occurred using tax payer’s money, therefore, she felt that the Selectmen should enact State law which required that the affecting land owner, not the applicants or any other developer, deal with drainage off that property onto Town roads or other properties and contain or divert that runoff when clearing their land. Dave Woodbury stated that he could not speak for all the Selectmen but noted that they were aware of this problem and were not sure that the solution was as clear cut as Brandy Mitroff suggested. He added that an application of nuisance clearing might be warranted and that if the Aksten clearing was found to be associated with damage to Town property or any other land owner’s property then civil action could be considered. Brandy Mitroff reiterated that it was the Aksten’s right to clear their land but there was never a water runoff problem on Thornton Road until they began to do so. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked if it would be possible to put ditchlines on the south side of Pine Road to alleviate the runoff. The Chairman replied that installing ditchlines would cause substantial root destruction to the trees along the south side of the road which would parallel the problems experienced recently on Greenfield Road. Roch Larochelle asked if the Road Agent had an opportunity to observe the drainage issue on Thornton Road. Brandy Mitroff replied that new grates, rip rap and ditchlines had been added to Thornton Road. She noted that as a result the runoff now diverted onto the Humphries’ property. The Chairman added that a drainage

easement should be considered for the proposed lot although the lot owner should not be made to pay for any work necessary to discharge the water. He added that he presumed the house on the proposed lot would be setback far enough so that any runoff across Pine Road would not be an issue for the homeowner. Roch Larochelle asked where the water runoff would end up. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that there was no defined flow and the water would infiltrate as sheet flow. Roch Larochelle asked if it were possible to put a ditchline on the south side of Pine Road where it would go if it could flow to the west and not across the road. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that due to a rise in Pine Road it would most likely go onto the proposed lot or the Humphries’ property. Roch Larochelle clarified that a culvert would then be required also. Brandy Mitroff asked if a detention pond could be put on the Aksten property since that was where the runoff originated and could be part of the remedy offered by the offending landowner. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that in order to do this a drainage easement would be required. James Nordstrom stated that in viewing the lot at the middle of its frontage it was clear to him that the runoff traveled from upslope, therefore, a detention facility before the water hit the Pine Road right-of-way could solve the problem. Brandy Mitroff noted that it would also put the burden on the property owner that had created the problem. James Nordstrom wondered how this solution could be tied into the application. The Chairman stated that it was in the Town’s interest to have the ability to channel the runoff onto the proposed lot and if the water flow were to worsen then the alleged responsible party could propose a ditchline. He added that the owner of the proposed lot should not incur the burden of the expense to install a ditchline, however, that lot was a natural place for the water to travel. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that a 43’ drainage easement could be added to the plan and would not affect the proposed lot. James Nordstrom added that if 50’ could be obtained from the right-of-way line to the south side of the road in order to encumber the easement that would be acceptable. Don Duhaime asked about the option for a detention pond. The Chairman was not sure that a detention pond would be necessary if the sheet flow could travel successfully onto the property. Bob Todd, LLS, clarified that if 17’ were added to complete the existing 33’ wide right-of-way it would create a 50’ right-of-way with a bio-detention area 200’ long and 17’ wide. He added that such a detention area could require maintenance in the future. James Nordstrom noted that if a future road came off Pine Road the 17’ could be important in creating a closed drainage system.

The Chairman noted that the current runoff across Pine Road was slow and likely to cause only minor icing. Roch Larochelle noted that was still a safety issue. Dave Woodbury noted that Pine Road further to the west from the proposed lot was currently Class VI and was destined to change over time, therefore, it was important to consider how it would be adjusted in the future. He added that over time it would be important to consider what would be done with narrow roads such as these. The Chairman did not think the proposed lot should carry the burden of how Pine Road could be widened in the future but that it was a receptor for current drainage across the road. He added that he had no other issues with the proposed lot. Bob Todd, LLS, did not think the applicant would be averse to the suggestions put forth this evening.

James Nordstrom suggested that the plan include a note that future development to the 50’ strip would require offsite improvements to Pine Road. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that a document conveying the easement discussed to the Town regarding the 50’ strip would be required.

Dave Woodbury felt that a solution was determined for the present proposal but was more interested in the overall problems for Pine Road highlighted by Roch Larochelle and its potential expansion from a current two rod road. He asked Bob Todd, LLS, what his thoughts were on the subject. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was standard practice in other towns such as Goffstown to dedicate 25’ from the centerline of an existing road in order to widen the road for proposed subdivisions. Dave Woodbury asked if landowners were ever averse to this. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that they were usually not as they wanted their subdivision applications approved. Dave Woodbury noted that a landowner with a limited amount of frontage could have an issue regarding widening. Bob Todd, LLS, agreed but noted that in many cases the opportunity for widening was there. Don Duhaime asked if an additional note regarding the potential of widening Pine Road in the future should be added to the plan. The Chairman was uncertain that so many stipulations should be applied to this application as it dealt with one lot only. Brandy Mitroff noted that there was a great deal of protected land on Pine Road and she questioned whether it would ever have the potential to connect with Scobie Road. Brandy Mitroff added that she believed Pine Road had been discontinued further to the west from the proposed lot and, therefore, was not even a Class VI road anymore. Dave Woodbury clarified that the widening issue would then not be an issue for Pine Road but could apply to other Town roads in the future.

The Chairman stated that he was comfortable with the previously described drainage easement proposed.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the application for the Major Subdivision/2 Lots for the Jane L. Workman Revocable Trust, by Jane L. and John P. Workman, Trustees, Pine and Thornton Roads, Tax Map/Lot #4/41, subject to:

CONDITIONS PRECEDEDNT:

1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections noted at this hearing;

2. Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD;

3. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.

4. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the Subdivision Application, including the cost of recording the mylar at the HCRD.

The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be February 1, 2006, 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 may convene a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

DONALD E. GARRETSON (APPLICANT/OWNER) Adjourned from 10/25/05

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. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Pat Panciocco, Esq., and the applicant Rick Martin. Abutters and interested parties present were Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, Kim Burkhamer, Pat Golding, Tom Clapp and Mark Anderson.

Pat Panciocco, Esq., began by stating that she had received a copy of the Planning Coordinator’s comments to the Board and wondered if the Board would like to discuss them. The Chairman commented that the concept of marketing the subdivision to buyers 55 and older may or may not be relevant to how the Board considered the plan. Pat Panciocco, Esq., noted that the Board had expressed concerns at previous meetings regarding the appropriateness of marketing a 55 and older subdivision in New Boston, however, marketing it as such would not change the design of the basic plan. She added that while the applicant felt that the marketing aspect was irrelevant he was willing to share the information that had been gathered on the subject with the Board if they wished. The Chairman stated that if the applicant determined that he would not market to the over 55 age group it would not affect how the Board viewed the plan. He questioned whether the selling price being considered by the applicant for each unit, of $300K would attract the over age 55 market. Pat Panciocco, Esq., noted that these issues may be of concern during the second phase of the development when the individual site plans were submitted. She noted that the applicant had approached the Town trying to do the right thing by proposing an environmentally sensitive subdivision for low impact residents with relatively low maintenance needs. Pat Panciocco, Esq., noted that this was tough to enforce because there were State and federal laws allowing over-55 developments the Town had no specific ordinance. She added that in light of comments made by the Board if they would prefer that the subdivision proposal not be marketed to buyers over 55 that could be easily rectified by updating the Traffic Study and proposing a conventional 20 lot subdivision. Rick Martin noted that in the retirement community proposal his target market would have been those buyers between the ages of 55 and 65 not 80 to 90. Pat Panciocco, Esq,, noted that given the escalation of the real estate market and the rising cost of oil the $300K selling price could be considered as an estimated number for a future date and might not be an exact cost. She further noted that the applicant could also consider downsizing the proposed units to become more in line with a target selling price. The Chairman stated that it was not the Board’s responsibility to price an applicant’s proposed homes, however, they were trying to view a realistic goal for sales success. Rick Martin noted that in his research on the subject many buyers over age 55 used liquid cash from the sale of their old homes and did not have a mortgage on retirement homes they purchased. Pat Panciocco, Esq., recalled that she had heard the same concerns raised by New Boston at a recent planning conference regarding the fact that it was becoming more likely that children who were raised in the Town would not be able to afford to live there when they got older. She noted that the proposed improvements to Beard Road were more the main issue for tonight’s discussion. The Chairman added that he felt the concept of marketing to buyers age 55 and older was a good one because it would cause less impact to the Town, however, the Board had no point instructing the applicant as to what type of subdivision he should market aside from the consideration of traffic counts. He thought that the applicant should anticipate either scenario and that if the comparative traffic counts were similar then the over 55 proposal could become an issue. Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that an updated Traffic Study would be done. The Chairman clarified that he would not want to see the subdivision proposal fail because the Traffic Study was found to be unsuitable due to an age 55 and older scenario. He was concerned that the layout of the plan could jeopardize the subdivision based on that target market.

James Nordstrom, in contrast, felt that there would be significant fiscal impacts to the Town based on the type of development that was proposed especially if the implementation of a 55 and older marketing plan failed. He added that although road networks and lot sizings could be identical between the condominium proposal or a plan for a conventional duplex subdivision the impacts of the latter would be considerable for the Town. James Nordstrom noted that, in addition, the scope of the research he had done with limited available resources suggested that the premise of 55 and older communities being less taxing on an infrastructure was not a reasonable assumption because other services of a town would in turn become more burdened by such scenarios. He added that State wide and for the north east in general this assumption had become a general misconception of planning communities. Pat Panciocco, Esq., noted that such research was fueled by additional research that assumed 2.4 children per households with three bedroom homes while many other reports showed a different picture entirely.

Dave Woodbury stated that he had always questioned the scope of the Board’s review process for applications such as these and that if their discretion dealt only with an applicant complying with a prescribed checklist then approvals could be given automatically. He asked where the line should be drawn and how much discretion the Board should have but noted that, based on his experience, the Board could deny applications that were presented in a scattered and premature fashion. The Chairman felt that such questions became relevant if the Board was asked to grant certain considerations regarding the impacts of this subdivision because it is a retirement community. Dave Woodbury thought that if the Board was convinced that the applicant’s marketing plan would fail then they would have the discretion to deny the application. The Chairman did not feel that it was the Board’s right to judge the success of an applicant’s marketing plan for a subdivision if it met the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and noted that they had not made a judgment on a previous applicant who proposed to offer his lots at $1M each to potential buyers and currently no lots had yet been sold. Douglas Hill felt that it was reasonable to discuss what type of subdivision the Town would want. The Chairman thought that an over 55 community was a good proposal but questioned whether it was relevant to the plan. He added that the solution was to apply the traffic counts of a conventional subdivision as that was a bigger issue for the applicant while fiscal impacts for plans seemed to historically generate net even numbers. Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that the applicant was not averse to inquiries regarding the marketing proposal to over age 55 buyers but noted that these had prompted comments as to whether the Town was interested in that type of subdivision. She noted that the bigger issue of the plan was the offsite improvements proposed to Beard Road which Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, would speak to. Pat Panciocco, Esq., added that the Road Committee had raised initial concerns, however, the applicant disagreed with some of their suggestions as they applied new road regulations to an already existing road. She added that they had not received of copy of the Road Committee’s comments until the plans were reviewed by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., which had prompted Amy Alexander to ask what standards should be applied. Pat Panciocco, Esq., further added that the applicant also sought the Board’s input on this issue because sight distance was involved. She noted that because the Town had no requirements for sight distance the latitude being proposed on the section of Beard Road slated for improvement was what was in question.

Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, stated that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had not received the applicant’s written responses to their comments of November 7, 2005, and noted that he had submitted two 22 sheet plan sets to the Planning Department which reviewed the drainage and included a response letter to the Town Engineer. He added that one of those sets was meant for Dufresne Henry, Inc. The Coordinator explained that ordinarily the engineer on a plan would submit such items directly to the Town Engineer and the Planning Department would receive copies. She had assumed that such was the case with this plan too.

Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the road improvement issue he wished to discuss involved the location of the intersection at Pasture and Beard Road at the upper end. He added that a distinct crest in this area inhibited sight distance and the applicant proposed to lower it approximately 3.8’ or 4” at the deepest cut. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that due to the existing shale ledges 3:1 slopes were not possible and that the Road Committee had commented that if full cross sections were not feasible or if the improvements could not be closer in line with Town road standards then the project should not be considered. He noted that as an engineer he sought to increase sight distance to the best of his ability and for Beard Road he was able to obtain three season sight distance of 350’ in the area of discussion. He noted that in the case of snow bank obstructions sight distance for the same area would be 50’, however, if stopping distance was established at the intersection then the safety factor would be addressed with anything more than that being performance based, meaning no slowing for oncoming cars. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that AASHTO safe stopping distance for small roads was 250’ at 35 m.p.h. and 225’ if there was a grade up to an intersection. He further stated that if this was applied to Beard Road all components were present except for the all season snow factor. He added that if the AASHTO setback standard was lessened a few feet to 6.5’ a car would be able to see past the embankments and ledges and in his opinion the improvements proposed met safety. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that this area of Beard Road was a 14% grade and had a distinct knob with current through sight distance of 150’ between cars. He noted that the applicant proposed to improve the road so that 250’ of sight distance resulted which would bring it up to AASHTO standards. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that because 3:1 slopes were not possible the applicant had offered to purchase land on either side of the road but his offers had been rejected. Rick Martin clarified that the offers made were to get easements for the Town and not purchase the land outright. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that another option to gain the 3:1 slopes had been to shave 3.8’ from the road which would have lowered the grade from 14% to 8%. He noted that the road improvement standards that would be required were pivotal to the plan and whether or not it could go forward. The Coordinator wished to note that approval of offsite road improvements were under the Selectmen’s authority with input offered by the Road Agent and Planning Board and that the Board did not have the authority to agree to the full extent of road improvements. Dave Woodbury stated that the Selectmen had not yet raised the issue but speaking as one of the Selectmen he knew that certain physical, legal and economic constraints needed consideration in this case. He added that while physical and legal limitations could be taken under advisement he questioned the economic factor and whether the applicant should employ more cost efforts to take the road down further if necessary. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, explained that if AASHTO standards of 14.5’ setback were to be applied then there were no other options for lessening the grade on the road as it would be physically impossible. Rick Martin clarified that the road improvements proposed met AASHTO standards, however, it was still unclear what standards the Town wanted applied. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that if the Town wished to have the most stringent standards applied then the plan could not go forward. Dave Woodbury stated that the applicant could not be asked to do improvements to the road that were not physically or legally possible, however, the Selectmen would need more input from the Road Agent and the Board before they could render a decision. Roch Larochelle noted that the Road Committee’s comments had been made based on sight distance, safety and maintenance and not on the ability to have the road meet Town standards. He added that AASHTO was ambiguous regarding rural low volume roads, however, before the Town opted to relax those standards it should be considered that traffic generated by a standard subdivision would net 400 additional car trips per day on Beard Road. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that if the plan became a standard subdivision it would have 21 single family home lots. Roch Larochelle replied that if duplexes were proposed then that would equal 42 units with twice as many cars. He explained that his main concern was safety and that Beard Road’s existing sight distance issues would be exacerbated by relaxing the standards for sight distance. Roch Larochelle added that he was also concerned with the cut slopes proposed and whether or not the applicant could guarantee that there would be no impacts to nearby properties like Mr. Clapp. He further added that based on the narrow road widths shown on the preliminary plans and the fact that all season sight distance standards could not be met due to snow banks adequate ditching and snow storage along the affected areas of Beard Road should be a priority. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the applicant proposed to increase the cross section of the road, therefore, drainage and snow storage would be added. He reiterated that the applicant sought input as to whether 3:1 slopes would be required as it would greatly affect the progression of the plan. Roch Larochelle replied that he was not concerned about the 3:1 slopes but rather that relaxing the Town road standards would minimize the safety items he had discussed. Rick Martin stated that he would approach the Selectmen for their input on the matter.

The Chairman suggested that if 400 additional car trips per day was found to be an unacceptable number then the applicant could reduce that figure to determine what number of lots would be acceptable for the plan. Roch Larochelle disagreed with that rationale and stated that even 200 additional car trips per day versus 400 was a lot of traffic on Beard Road. He added that the applicant’s proposal to pave from the eastern proposed entrance of the subdivision on Beard Road out to Route 77 was commendable but hoped that the concerns expressed this evening would be considered by the Selectmen. He asked that the applicant consider presenting a road improvement plan that presented a compromise. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the current plan was that compromise. He referred for example to McCurdy Road which was improved with 1:2 slopes on one side and a rip rapped embankment on the other because a full cross section could not be accomplished and its intersection with Bedford Road realigned to obtain acceptable sight distance. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, felt that the offsite road improvements proposed for this application showed progress but if the Town felt differently then the applicant should be informed. Dave Woodbury assumed that the Board was not in a position to approve or disapprove the plan until the offsite road improvement issue was resolved. He noted that one purpose of the Board was to collaborate with a developer which was not the role of the Selectmen, therefore, the plan submitted to the Selectmen should be the applicant’s chosen version and at that point input from the Board and other Town agencies would be considered. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, asked if the Board would give their consensus to the road improvement plan since they would be interfacing with the Selectmen. The Chairman replied that the proposal would need to be finalized for submittal to the Selectmen first. Rick Martin wished to clarify that the Selectmen were willing to look at the plan and offer their determinations. Dave Woodbury noted that the Selectmen would not want to be placed in a bargaining situation and that they would want to see the best efforts of the applicant put forth in the plan. He asked that good feedback be provided to the Selectmen by the Road Agent and the Road Committee.

Roch Larochelle asked if the plans referenced by the Road Committee had been updated. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that they had. Roch Larochelle stated that he had not seen those updates and that his comments this evening were based on what he presumed was revised. He asked if he could obtain a copy of the updated plan in case additional comments were needed. Dave Woodbury noted that an approval of the road improvement plan by the Selectmen could be problematic if certain Town entities still needed updated information. He added that the Selectmen did not have the time, expertise or resources to research the issues discussed tonight and expected to receive a completed package for review.

Interested party Tom Clapp was concerned that the 3.8’ cut proposed on Beard Road would adversely affect the grade of his driveway which was already steep. Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, replied that Mr. Clapp’s driveway entered off Beard Road where the cut was proposed at 1.5 to 2’.

Interested party Mark Anderson stated that it had been stated earlier in the discussion that it was the not Board’s responsibility to decide if a type of subdivision was appropriate or inappropriate for the Town. He wondered what entity should take on that responsibility and believed that it should be the Planning Board. Mark Anderson asked what the case would be if the Board approved the plan for an over 55 subdivision and it went bankrupt. The Chairman replied that this was why he suggested using the worst case scenario of a conventional subdivision for the traffic study. Mark Anderson felt that a board in the Town should be responsible for deciding when a project was inappropriate for the Town and the question was what board should do that. Dave Woodbury stated that this was the question he asked earlier in the discussion and he was still unsure what degree of discretion the Board had in making such decisions. Mark Anderson stated that if the Board did not have the ability to say no in controversial applications like these then its purpose was questionable as the Planning Coordinator and Town Counsel could address all plans in checklist fashion. He noted that the planning boards of Exeter and Newfield had said no to projects like these. The Chairman stated that Mark Anderson’s comments would be considered and that the applicant needed to meet with the Selectmen regarding the proposed offsite road improvements for the plan. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the applicant would collaborate with the Town Engineer and get feedback from the Road Committee. The Chairman stated that the most important question was whether the Selectmen would accept the modifications proposed to Beard Road with adequate sight distance, snow and erosion control. He added that the Board could not make a decision as to what the Selectmen would accept regarding the proposed offsite improvements. He added that he did not believe that the Road Committee would recommend that the Board accept a road improvement plan without 4 season safe sight distance. Roch Larochelle noted that the question was what limits were proposed and that there was flexibility in the design, however, it was the determination of the Selectmen.

James Nordstrom asked if the Road Committee could give the Board a definitive recommendation on sight distance requirements. Roch Larochelle replied that they could and that the minimum recommendations would be made regarding safety and maintenance. The Chairman stated that all Town entities involved would need copies of the most recent plans. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, asked if the Board had noted any issues on site that needed consideration. James Nordstrom replied that he had not attended the site walk held with members of the Board, however, had walked the site himself afterwards and he and another Board member, Bob Furey had both noticed that in two proposed detention areas the grade of the land for maintenance accessibility seemed steep, however, the cuts proposed may alleviate that situation. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that a double helix maintenance road was proposed per the Town Engineer’s comments to that observation. James Nordstrom stated that he assumed this may have already been addressed.

Pat Panciocco, Esq., noted that the 65 day time frame for action by the Board was up at the end of December, 2005, and that the applicant was agreeable to extending that time frame. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, requested another 65 day extension for the Board to act on the application. Rick Martin stated that he would retrieve the extra plan set submitted to the Planning Department the next day and deliver it to the Town Engineer. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the 45 item checklist had been reviewed and addressed by the applicant. Roch Larochelle requested a full set of plans for the Road Committee.

The Coordinator noted that a full 65 days additional would put the applicant between meetings and suggested that the second meeting in February would be a more appropriate date. The Board and applicant agreed.

James Nordstrom MOVED at the applicant’s request to extend the statutory deadline for the application of Donald E. Garretson (Applicant/Owner), and Right Way Builders, Inc., Rick Martin (Applicant), Major Subdivision, 20 Lots, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 52, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to February 28, 2006. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Donald E. Garretson (Applicant/Owner), and Right Way Builders, Inc., Rick Martin (Applicant), Major Subdivision, 20 Lots, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 52, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, to January 10, 2006. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

PEDZIK, CHRISTINE & ANDRZEJ

Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Kennel

Location: 762 River Road

Tax Map/Lot #6/20

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants, Christine and Andrzej Pedzik.

Andrzej Pedzik submitted three sets of updated plans to the Board. The Chairman noted that although the Board procedurally required that submissions related to a plan be made a minimum of seven days prior to its next scheduled hearing the Coordinator had informed him that the Board could relax that requirement at their discretion.

James Nordstrom asked if two landscaping items on the plan were proposed or required by the applicant. The Chairman recalled that the applicants had proposed to increase their compliant buffered area on the plan. James Nordstrom stated that based on what he viewed at the site the applicants had complied with the intent of their original plan. The Chairman noted that modifications made to enhance the site were updated on the revised plan. James Nordstrom stated that he saw no life safety issues with the site and saw no reason why the Board could not act on compliance. He asked if follow up would be required for an outstanding item of an exterior light that was not yet delivered. Christine Pedzik replied that the light in question was a goose neck low wattage light that would adhere to the sign. Andrzej Pedzik added that this light was aesthetic. Dave Woodbury commented that he thought the site look very good.

Dave Woodbury MOVED to confirm that Christine and Andrzej Pedzik have complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to operate a kennel from their property at 762 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/20, and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department.

James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

The Chairman stated that the Planning Department would forward the appropriate paperwork to the Building Inspector so that the Certificate of Occupancy could be issued.

At 8:55 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.

This will be a discussion with the Steep Slopes Committee to discuss their recommendations for amending the Steep Slope Ordinance.

Willard Dodge was present from the Steep Slopes Committee and opened the discussion for Chairman Bill Weston who arrived soon after. Also present were Committee members Brandy Mitroff, Dave Elliot, Dan Teague and Mitch Larochelle. Willard Dodge offered a brief history of the Ordinance and noted that its adoption in March, 2005 had caused much controversy in the Town. He added that he had attended a meeting held by the opposing group, The Concerned Landowners of New Boston, LLC, which also had concerns about whether the Ordinance as passed was appropriate for the Town. He further added that at that point he had approached the Planning Board and requested that they reinstate the Steep Slopes Committee so that certain gray areas of the Ordinance could be considered. Willard Dodge stated that most of the original members remained with the reinstated committee and four new members were added: Dave Elliot, Dan Teague, Roger Noonan and Mitch Larochelle. He noted that the new members did not join the Committee for personal reasons that could affect them economically in their professions but because of their commitment to the Town. He noted that the two sides had reached a compromise represented by the amendments proposed and added that the expertise of their chairman Bill Weston along with the professional input offered by Earl Sandford of Sandford Survey and Engineering was invaluable. He then read the letter composed by the Steep Slopes Committee to the Board dated November 22, 2005, regarding their proposed final recommendations.

Bill Weston joined the discussion and stated that he wished to review how the items proposed as new or amended to the Ordinance reflected on the Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations. He explained that there were three options open to the Planning Board: 1. To keep the existing Ordinance and reject the new proposals offered by the Steep Slopes Committee. 2. Accept the Committee’s recommendations and move toward a public hearing to place the amendments on the ballot for the March 2006 vote. 3. Reject the proposed recommendations of the Committee and craft an alternate version of those recommendations. Bill Weston advised against the Board choosing option #3 due to the complexity of the issue and the length of time it would take to come up with something new.

Douglas Hill asked how contiguous flat lands were being defined in the amendments to the Ordinance and for an example of lot sizings. Bill Weston replied that any land with slopes less than 15% was considered flat and a ½ acre was a little more than 21,000 s.f. Douglas Hill clarified that a house and septic system could easily fit within these parameters. Bill Weston agreed and stated that was why that configuration was chosen by the Committee. Douglas Hill referenced the section of the amendment that dealt with construction within 20’ of an abutting lot and asked if a proposed driveway could be constructed within that 20’ measure also. Bill Weston replied that it could and that if that was the case a stormwater management plan would be required for the plan in consideration of the abutting property. The Coordinator suggested that the language in this section be revised to include side and rear lot lines. Those present agreed.

Douglas Hill asked if all Committee members were in favor of the amendments proposed. Bill Weston replied that the Committee’s acceptance of the amendments being proposed was not unanimous as one member felt that certain slopes were undevelopable versus the Committee’s statement put forth that any land was developable as long as engineered plans supported it. Douglas Hill asked if the Committee member that was not in agreement with that statement had any scientific data to support their opinion. Bill Weston replied they did not and it was a strongly held personal opinion. Dave Woodbury asked what system of enforcement was proposed. Bill Weston replied that this issue had been discussed at every Committee meeting and that the Stormwater Management Plan contained approximately 70% of what the Committee felt should be required except for the fact that it was not currently enforced. He added that licensed professionals needed to attest that properties were developed in accordance with the Stormwater Management Plan, therefore, the enforcement aspect dealt with these professionals preparing As-Builts.

Dave Woodbury referred to the second sentence under the Enforcement item in the Committee’s recommendation to the Board: “However, there is a significant risk to the town in that the selectmen and methods of the enforcers is completely out of the town’s control under this system” and clarified that the individuals who would determine that the Stormwater Management Plan was followed would be professionals and not the Selectmen, Planning Board members, etc. Bill Weston replied that was correct and that unlike other towns the New Boston Building Department was small and operated part time, therefore, could not be expected to handle the additional aspects of Stormwater compliance and adherence to design plans. Dave Woodbury asked if a semi-professional Town employee was being suggested who would need the proper credentials such as a PE. Bill Weston replied that was the case and noted that there were retired professionals who worked for towns in that manner. Dave Woodbury assumed that this type of proposal would be made directly to the Selectmen. Bill Weston replied that would be the case but he at least wanted it in the Committee’s recommendation letter so that it could be acknowledged by the Board. He explained that if the Committee’s recommendations were adopted then a plan would have an As-Built inspection requirement and its verification would be handled by the Town. Dave Woodbury stated that the Subdivision and Site Plan Regulations would most likely need to be revamped if a retained semi-professional was proposed as a Town employee. Bill Weston replied that the Town would vote on the amendments to the Steep Slopes Ordinance only and the revisions to the Subdivison and Site Plan Regulations which would be subject to a public hearing and a vote by the Planning Board. Dave Woodbury questioned the likelihood that the Town would vote in an additional paid employee versus having the expense incurred by a developer which was the current practice. Bill Weston agreed but noted that another unacceptable aspect was that a developer could choose who did his engineering and attested to the accurateness of the As-Builts versus having one Town employed professional to cover those items for all applicants. Dave Woodbury asked if Bill Weston was suggesting that the Committee was not confident in the quality of certain engineering professionals that did work for applicants in the Town and that the quality varied enough so that it imposed a risk. Bill Weston replied that a variance among these professionals did exist and noted a recent situation where the Planning Board had conducted a site walk and was provided with plans that did not match what the site reflected. He noted that if a Town employee took on the same responsibility the Board would not need to do this and there would be less variability in what was being stamped. Dave Woodbury noted that in order to sell the idea of a professional staff member to the Town it would need to be proposed as substantially necessary. Willard Dodge stated that New Boston was one of the fastest growing towns in the State and felt that it was reasonable to have such a professional employed by the Town to look out for its benefits. Dave Elliot added that there were a lot of situations that had occurred and would occur which were not good for the Town’s roads and neighboring lots that were not covered by the existing Steep Slopes Ordinance and that by having a Town employee monitoring these issues nothing would slip through the system. Douglas Hill asked what the enforcing agency behind this employee would be. Dave Elliot felt that it could be under the Planning Department. Bill Weston noted that under the Committee’s proposal a PE would be required to stamp their attestation on As-Builts and deliver them to the Planning Department before a Certificate of Occupancy and return of escrow could be obtained and that a Town employee could handle these issues. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked what the negatives were to having an escrow in place for the Town Engineer to perform the same service. Bill Weston replied that this was an option, however, because it had been noted by some members that the Town Engineer was more expensive and sometimes less than timely the Committee settled on the recommendation for a Town employee and that in this way the scenario of having engineers certify against other engineers could be avoided. Roch Larochelle noted that if it was found that the Town had issues with its engineer based on expense or timeliness then there was always the option of hiring another engineer. Dave Woodbury thought that having the Town Engineer act in that capacity would be more appropriate as they were already used to working with the Town. The Chairman agreed that this scenario would be more direct than trying to deal with a Town employee. Dave Elliot noted that a negative aspect was that the Town Engineer might not have the capacity to be able to approve the design standards of every lot which would be required in every application going forward if the Committee’s amendments were accepted. Brandy Mitroff suggested that a fee structure could be put in place much like the Building Department so that the proposed Town employee’s salary was paid by the applicants involved which might be better accepted by the voters. The Chairman stated that he would be more confident in an outside engineer hired by the Board enforcing what the Town wanted versus dealing with a Town employee. Willard Dodge thought that if such a Town employee was found not to be following the mandates imposed then they could be released from their position. The Chairman felt that an outside engineering firm was more likely to do what the Planning Board asked and be more objective than a Town employee. Bill Weston noted language was included in the Committee’s recommendation that if the Board was not satisfied with the certification provided by an applicant’s engineer then one could be designated by the Board at the applicant’s expense.

Douglas Hill asked the opinion of Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, who was in the audience. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that if the minimum criteria were set then he believed an applicant should be able to choose their own engineer and that direct relationship would eliminate a lot of red tape for the Town. Douglas Hill asked Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, what gray areas existed relative to engineer certifications. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the proof of certification accuracy came after a big storm event and, for example, the failure of silt fencing which would compromise the integrity of the engineer who stamped the plans. The Chairman stated that another example was the Board’s requirement for engineered plans for driveways followed by As-Builts which had been a successful tool of certification and provided more guarantee than he felt a Town employee could offer. Bill Weston stated that the Town employee option could be considered separately from the body of the recommendations. James Nordstrom stated that he felt that the system proposed this evening relied on the integrity of the professionals involved and was a mechanism of checks and balances and, in the Chairman’s example regarding driveways, relied on the certification of the As-Built as the ultimate confirmation.

Brandy Mitroff noted that the current Board had more professional experience than in the past and wondered if a layman would be able to notice the types of nuances as this Board was able to. Douglas Hill noted that one Town employee would need to be equipped with a great deal of surveying equipment to aptly perform certifications in the field. The Chairman reiterated that requiring stamped certifications on plans and As-Builts worked well as it was the reputation of the professional who stamped that plan that was on the line.

Dave Woodbury believed that the package proposed by the Steep Slopes Committee could be accepted this evening and moved to a public hearing. Bill Weston noted that the Town employee proposal could be addressed later in the process. He further noted that the statutory time line required action before December 13, 2005.

Dave Woodbury MOVED to proceed to a public hearing on the recommendation of the Steep Slopes Committee regarding proposed amendments to the Steep Slopes Ordinance on December 13, 2005. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

LECLAIR, TIMOTHY AND VESSICCHIO, LYNN AND SUSANA LECLAIR REVOCABLE TRUST

Submission of Application/Public Hearing

Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment

Location: Bedford Road

Tax Map/Lot #9/24, 9/24-1 and 9/24-12

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant Bob LeClair. No abutters or interested parties were present.

Bob LeClair explained that as part of this lot line adjustment plan he proposed to add some land from his Lot, #9/24, to his brother’s Lot, #9/24-1, as he was selling his house. He wanted his brother to have more of a buffer around his house. Bob LeClair went on to say that an additional lot line adjustment between Lot #9/24 and #9/24-12 would allow a small strip of land to keep Lots #9/24-12 and 9/24-13 connected. He explained that he was retaining ownership of the other lots created by his recent subdivision and keeping Lots #9/24-12 and 9/24-13 connected allowed him to keep the land in current use and, therefore, avoid a larger tax burden. Bob LeClair replied that they were still separate lots and noted them on the plan and how the lot lines would be changed using the existing stone wall as a boundary. He added that no new lots were being created. The Chairman asked if the proposed lot line adjustment would create any future subdivision options on the land involved. Bob LeClair replied that it would not. James Nordstrom clarified that this proposal was post approval planning which resulted from the fact that the applicant put his home on the market. Douglas Hill asked the current acreage of Lot# 9/24. Bob LeClair replied that it was 11.968 acres.

Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the application as complete and to approve the Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for the Susana LeClair Revocable Trust and Timothy LeClair and Lynn Vessicchio, Bedford and Wilson Hill Roads, such that Parcel A will be annexed from Tax Map/Lot #9/24 to 9/24-1, Parcel B will be annexed from Tax Map/Lot 9/24-1 to 9/24, and Parcel C will be annexed from Tax Map/Lot #9/24 to 9/24-12, leaving Tax map/Lot #9/24 with 11.968 acres, Tax Map/Lot #9/24-1 with 4.079 acres and Tax Map/Lot 9/24-12 with 3.346 acres subject to:

CONDITIONS PRECEDEDNT:

1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections noted at this hearing;

2. Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD;

3. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD (if applicable);

4. Payment of any outstanding fees including the cost of recording the mylar at the

HCRD.

The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be March 15, 2006, 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.

James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

SIZEMORE, RONALD & MARILYN (OWNERS)

SIZEMORE, PAUL (APPLICANT)

Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Phase 2 & 3/ Amend and Expand existing

Gravel Display/Sales for existing Truck & Auto Repair Business

Location: NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road

Tax Map/Lot #5/29-1

Commercial “Com” District

The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant Paul Sizemore.

The Chairman stated that the Board had received As-Built plans. James Nordstrom commented that the site work was done very well. The Chairman asked who did the site work. Paul Sizemore replied that he did it himself. The Chairman complimented Paul Sizemore on the work and noted that the result was better than anticipated.

James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm that Paul Sizemore (applicant) has complied with the conditions subsequent for Phases II and III of the approval of the site plan to amend and expand the gravel sales and display areas for the existing truck and auto repair business from Ronald and Marilyn Sizemore’s property on N.H. Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/29-1, and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 22, 2005

6a. A copy of a faxed letter received October 31, 2005, from Sandford Survey and Engineering, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: proposed grade change to Carriage Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

Addressed with item #6b.

6b. A copy of a faxed received November 16, 2005, from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, Re: offsite improvements to Carriage Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, was present for this item. Also present were Carriage Road residents Matt Haddad and David Moore.

The Chairman asked Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, if he had read the rebuttal comments provide by Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., regarding his proposals regarding the issues surrounding improvements to Carriage Road. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that he felt Amy Alexander’s recommendations would provide performance at the risk of safety in light of the fact

that stopping distance at the intersection of Carriage and Susan Roads was already addressed and that by her recommendations sight distance would be decreased to 194’. He added that 270’ of all season safe sight distance existed at this intersection which exceeded the required 225’. He read from AASHTO: “….intersection sight distance that exceeds stopping sight distances are intended to enhance traffic operation but are not minimum design criteria that are essential to safety.” and noted that the present sight distance was safe just not enhanced. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, strongly disagreed with Amy Alexander’s suggestions because it would mean that sight distance would be decreased more than 50’ from what AASHTO recommended for coming over the existing incline on Carriage Road as it approached the intersection. He noted that abutters backing out of their driveways would not have their tail lights visible for 200’ and that there were others things to consider besides cars staying in their own lane when considering safety. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that extended sight distance beyond safety to 390’ would compromise other safety factors on that road. Douglas Hill clarified that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, was proposing to make no improvements to Carriage Road to further enhance existing sight distance from the intersection with Susan Road. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that was

correct. He added that cutting into the grade of Carriage Road would create a sharper and more abrupt crest as noted in orange on the plan in comparison to the yellow shading which represented the existing crest which allowed for 250’ of safe sight distance per AASHTO standards and a smoother transition. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, explained that enhancing the intersection’s safe sight distance would be reasonable if stop signs were present, however, this was a through road, therefore, he believed the rationale was not appropriate. The Coordinator asked Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, if there was a third option in dealing with this issue as several Board members had visited the sight and still had sight distance concerns. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that Susan Road had been elevated 8-9” since it was paved which would provide a different perspective. The Chairman stated that he viewed the site in his truck and observed a blind spot from the intersection. Mitch Larochelle noted that after Susan Road was paved this week sight distance down Carriage Road was 400’. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that even lowering Carriage Road 1’ would compromise safety. James Nordstrom clarified that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE’s, opinion was that the current sight distance was better than what was proposed by the improvements to Carriage Road. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that was correct and that safety was not being lessened by leaving Carriage Road in its existing state while having less than 250’ of sight distance would be sacrificing AASHTO’s criteria.

Douglas Hill asked the abutters present if they were satisfied with the existing sight distance. The abutters replied that they were. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that if the improvements were made to Carriage Road one existing driveway would become a blind driveway. Mitch Larochelle noted that there were two existing driveways at the crest on Carriage Road. Dave Woodbury stated that as a newcomer to this item he did not think that Amy Alexander’s letter provided much information to aid in understanding the issue. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that T.F. Moran also preferred to leave Carriage Road in its existing state. James Nordstrom clarified that originally Susan Road came off Carriage Road at a positive grade and once it shifted to a negative grade the sight distance issue occurred. Dave Elliot questioned the original grades on the plan and noted that the intersection grade was changed by a small amount.

James Nordstrom asked if rescinding the prior approval of the plan would be necessary if the Board determined that Carriage Road remained as is. The Coordinator replied that the offsite improvement part would be rescinded but asked if the Board would want the input of the Selectmen and the Road Agent before that was considered. The Chairman stated that they would

and felt that a site walk was warranted to assess the current sight distance. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that a site walk would also reveal what could be lost in sight distance if the road improvements were made. The Chairman felt that Amy Alexander should provide more detail to support her recommendations for the road improvements. James Nordstrom added that the Board should revisit what was approved for sight distance on Carriage Road and whether the improvements recommended by the Town Engineer would enhance or jeopardize safety. He added that this was not a situation where a developer was attempting to avoid cost and labor and was more a genuine concern for long term safety.

Douglas Hill asked how deep the proposed improvements’ cuts were. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that they were better than 3’ at the deepest cut. The Chairman thought that a solution could be to lower the existing crest that approached the intersection. James Nordstrom stated that he would be interested in the additional input of the Road Agent and the Town Engineer as it appeared that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, had analyzed this issue in greater depth than Dufresne-Henry, Inc. He noted that in light of tonight’s information he would lean toward not making any improvements to Carriage Road. Douglas Hill agreed but added that he was interested in hearing from the Road Agent and the Town Engineer as well as what the site walk would reveal. The Board determined that they could do a site walk on the same date that Warren Drive’s site walk was scheduled as the two locations were close to each other.

The site walk was scheduled for Saturday, December 3, 2005, at 8:30 a.m.

13. Schedule a compliance site walk for Warren Drive, Nissitissit Development, LLC, Tax

Map/Lot #12/17, 18 & 19.

A site walk was scheduled for December 3, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. +/-.

17a. A copy of a proposal received November 18, 2005, from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to the Board, Re: bond reduction for Harvey Dupuis Family Trust, Carriage Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

Addressed with item #17b.

17b. A copy of a letter dated November 22, 2005, from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to the Board, Re: bond reduction for Harvey Dupuis Family Trust, carriage Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

The Chairman stated that Amy Alexander had recommended that the above noted bond be reduced to $114K and agreed with her recommendation.

James Nordstrom MOVED to reduce the bond for Harvey Dupuis Family Trust to $114K per the recommendation by Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., in her letter to the Board dated November 22, 2005. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

4. Driveway Permit Application for Mitch Construction, Carriage Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/93, for the Board’s action. (Drive-by prior to meeting)

Douglas Hill asked if the proposed driveway was flat or graded. Dave Elliot replied that the grade was 10%. The Chairman stated that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, had provided an As-Built description of the driveway and asked what type of guardrails would be constructed. Dave Elliot replied that the guardrails would be similar to those at the Post Office only with a stronger rail. The Chairman commented that the guardrails constructed for a driveway on Inkberry Road were very well done. James Nordstrom noted that the guardrails for the Inkberry Road driveway were constructed to DOT specifications.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application # 05-047, 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 driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. It is stipulated that guardrails will be installed along the driveway before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the lot. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Although not on the agenda for this evening, Jonathan Willard was present in the audience and asked if he could approach the Board with several questions regarding his preschool proposal plan currently withdrawn but intended for resubmission in 2006. The Chairman stated that Mr. Willard could approach the Board for an informal discussion.

Jonathan Willard stated that two outstanding issues of the plan dealt with an access easement and a septic permit for the proposed preschool. He explained that he had met with the School Board recently to address the easement and they stated they would be willing to enter into an agreement based on the condition that a preschool occupied the applicant’s property. This would not be an easement and would, therefore, avoid the problems that had been encountered during discussion of an easement. Jonathan Willard stated that he wished to get the Board’s input on this matter before the School Board formerly made the motion to enter into the agreement. The Chairman clarified that the School Board inferred that if the proposed preschool ceased to be a preschool at any time the agreement would lapse. Jonathan Willard replied that was correct.

Douglas Hill asked Jonathan Willard if he would be acquiring land to accommodate an approved septic system. Jonathan Willard replied that he was currently working on this issue. James Nordstrom returned to the subject of the agreement and clarified that the School Board was considering granting him the right to use a portion of their property as long as the existing structure remained a preschool. Jonathan Willard replied that was the case and noted that he had discussed access issues with the School Board and stated that a chain would be installed across the access when the proposed preschool was not in session. He added that there would be no preschool parking allowed on School Road either.

1. Approval of minutes of October 11, 2005, with or without changes, distributed at the meeting of November 8, 2005. (No Copies)

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of October 11, 2005, as written. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED.

Dave Woodbury noted his abstention from the vote as he was not an ex-officio member of the Board at the time the minutes were taken.

2. The minutes of October 25, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of December 13, 2005, with or without changes.

3. Driveway Permit Application for Locus Field, LLC, Robert Starace, Hopkins Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-1, for the Board’s action. (Drive-by prior to meeting)

James Nordstrom replied that he had viewed the proposed driveway off Salisbury Road and although the access was not marked he had a rough idea of the entrance based on the sketch provided and had no specific reasons as to why it could not be approved. The Chairman noted that this driveway was a proposed secondary access to the lot.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application # 05-058, for

proposed secondary driveway, 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 driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90

degrees. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

5. A copy of a faxed letter received November 18, 2005, from Amy Alexander, Dufresne- Henry, Inc., Re: bond reduction recommendation, 13-15 Hopkins Road, was distributed for the Board’s action.

James Nordstrom MOVED to reduce the bond for 13-15 Hopkins Road as captioned in the letter by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., received November 18, 2005. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

7. A copy of a letter received November 14, 2005, from Cyndie Wilson, Secretary, New Boston Conservation Commission, to the New Boston Planning Board, Re: Hopkins Road, kettle hole proposed easement, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

The Coordinator explained that the above noted letter assumed that the developer would put covenants in the deed rather than having a separate easement drawn up.

8. A copy of a letter received November 14, 2005, from Cyndie Wilson, Secretary, New Boston Conservation Commission, to the New Boston Planning Board, Re: Vista Road, LLC, proposed conservation easement, was distributed for the Board’s information.

9 A copy of a letter received November 14, 2005, from Cyndie Wilson, Secretary, New Boston Conservation Commission, to Chris Bowman, State of NH, DES, Re: Vista Road, LLC, on site inspection was distributed for the Board’s information.

The Coordinator explained that Vista Road, LLC, was obtaining permits in anticipation of submitting an application to the Board and this letter addressed the concerns of the Conservation Commission.

10. A copy of a memorandum from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Planning Board Members, Re: Miscellaneous Business Submission Deadlines, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

The Coordinator explained that in consideration of the Board’s submission deadline procedure it sometimes worked well to keep certain items moving through the process such as the Pedzik application that was heard for compliance earlier in the evening. Douglas Hill agreed that with a majority vote the Board could make such discretionary decisions on a case by case basis.

11a. A copy of a letter received November 10, 2005, from David Preece, Executive Director, SNHPC, to Mr. Peter Hogan, Planning Board Chairman, Re: contaminated lands (Brownfields), was distributed for the Board’s information.

11b. A copy of the agenda for Public Hearing/Info Session received November 10, 2005, from SNHPC, to New Boston Planning Board Members, Re: contaminated lands (Brownfields), was distributed for the Board’s information.

14. Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for Seff Enterprises and Holdings, LLC, Foxberry Drive, 8/84-30, by the Planning Board Chairman.

The Chairman endorsed the above noted Subdivision Agreement.

15. Endorsement of a Site Plan for James and Claire Dodge, New Boston Self Storage, LLC, NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/21-3, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

The Chairman and Vice Chairman (as the Secretary left tonight’s meeting early) endorsed the above noted Site Plan.

16. Endorsement of a Conditional Use Permit for Steep Slopes for David L. and Janet E. Nixon, Lyndeborough Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/58-1, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

The Chairman and Vice Chairman (as the Secretary left tonight’s meeting early) endorsed the above noted Conditional Use Permit.

The Coordinator noted that the As-Built Plans for the Sizemores also needed to be endorsed. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman did so.

At 11:08 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Dave Woodbury seconded the

motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne O’Brien Minutes Approved:

Recording Clerk