PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Travis Daniels, 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, Emile Bussiere, Roch Larochelle, Bob Todd, LLS, Pat Panciocco, Esq., Ray Shea, Earney Mayo, Jay Marden, David Craig, Bo Strong, Lynn Strong, Julie Dillon, Kim Burkhamer, Rick Martin, Mark Anderson, Pat Golding, Kristine Filteau, Dwight Lovejoy, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Mike Ryan, Esq., Tom Clapp, Cliff Plourde, Dan Teague, Kim DiPietro and Raymond Critch.
BUSSIERE, JAQUELINE Adjourned from 8/09/05
Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing/Design Review
Major Subdivision/13 Lots
Location: Indian Falls Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/88
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
&
INDIAN FALLS, LLC
Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing/Design Review
Major Subdivision/6 Lots
Location: Indian Falls Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/89
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Ray Shea, Earney Mayo and Emile Bussiere. Interested parties present were Roch Larochelle, Road Committee and Jay Marden.
Ray Shea stated that this was the second meeting which involved the two separate applications of abutting land owners and noted that Tax Map/Lot #12/89 of Indian Falls, LLC, was a 43 acre parcel located at the cul-de-sac of Indian Falls Road which was proposed as an extension to the subdivision with 6 lots. He further noted that Tax Map/Lot #12/88 was greater than 50 acres and located to the south of the Indian Falls subdivision connecting to the western portion of the subdivision currently being proposed by the Dupuis Family Trust. Ray Shea stated that a site walk of these properties had recently been conducted with members of the Board.
Ray Shea noted that at the last meeting the main issue raised dealt with two additional parcels owned by the Bussiere family to the south and east of the properties being discussed this evening and how their potential future development could tie in with the proposed subdivisions and create possible outlet roads in the vicinity of Klondike Korner. He submitted small scale conceptual plans to the Board illustrating this potential future development. Ray Shea stated that the blue shading on the conceptual plan represented Tax Map/Lot #12/88 owned by the Bussiere family and noted that the additional parcel to the south was 80 acres in size and currently zoned for mobile housing. He added that another 49 acre parcel also owned by the Bussiere family
abutted to the south of the latter mentioned parcel which brought their total acreage for potential future development to approximately 130 acres. Ray Shea stated that topographic mapping was done by means of aerial survey and the wetlands had been delineated. He added that an extension of the Indian Falls Road lots into these parcels appeared to be approvable given that information and would involve extending Indian Falls Road an additional half mile in order to reconnect with Bedford Road. He further noted that the property zoned for mobile homes had 1,200 to 1,400 feet of frontage on Bedford Road and that the best scenario for extending Indian Falls Road would be to run it south of an existing mill pond on the property which would make a main outlet to the east and onto Bedford Road. Ray Shea added that sight
distance at this outlet would need to be examined, however, this conceptual plan presented an example of how the remaining land in question could be developed. He further added that the conceptual design showed 20-21 additional lots and could potentially connect to property owned by the Dupuis Family Trust which abutted on its western side, however, since he had no solid information on that property he chose to consider the two remaining parcels owned by the Bussiere family for his example. Ray Shea noted that the impact of this layout would impact approximately 18,000 s.f. of wetlands, therefore, the viability of further development was questionable.
Ray Shea stated that the Bussiere property that was currently zoned for mobile homes would need to be rezoned in order to be subdivided for single family homes as the Zoning Ordinance only allowed that one use on the property currently. He noted that Emile Bussiere had recently sent a letter to the Board questioning what a re-zoning process would entail. The Chairman stated that the Board had briefly discussed Mr. Bussiere’s letter at a previous meeting and noted that he would need to initiate such a re-zoning request. Gordon Carlstrom added that this would be done by way of a formal petition to the Town
Ray Shea returned to the subject of the conceptual design and pointed out that a future extension out to Bedford Road from these properties would be a relief valve for traffic on Bedford Road as it could accommodate traffic from Indian Falls Road and that section of Bedford Road to that outlet point. He added that a connector road would not impact Klondike Korner any more than the traffic did currently.
Bob Furey asked what the dashed line represented on the conceptual plan. Ray Shea replied that this line marked a division between the lot zoned for mobile homes and another lot abutting the New Boston Tracking Station that did not have any frontage. Interested party, Jay Marden asked if all the property on the conceptual plan was owned by the Bussiere family. Ray Shea replied that it was. Jay Marden asked if the design layout assumed single family home lots rather than mobile home lots. Ray Shea replied that was the case. Jay Marden congratulated the applicant for a timely response to the question of future development potential posed at the previous meeting. He added that he was interested to know what properties would be considered to be
set aside for recreational use by homeowners in these subdivisions as this point had been raised at past meetings with the applicant(s). Jay Marden noted that a larger lot previously noted with wetlands might suffice for recreational use. Ray Shea replied that the Indian Falls applicant had referred to land donated to the Town from their subdivision at the last meeting and that he had asked Emile Bussiere to be present for this evening’s hearing so that he could speak to that issue. Emile Bussiere replied that although he was unsure if the donation of land was a requirement he was amenable to suggestions. Jay Marden explained to Mr. Bussiere that some people in the Town were concerned that subdivisions such as those proposed this evening with the potential for a combined total of approximately 100 lots should have adjacent land available for possible schools, recreation or in support of wildlife corridors. Emile Bussiere noted that his current
proposal involved 13 lots which was lesser in scale to his abutting counterparts, therefore, if they were also willing to propose the donation of land for such usage he would not be the drawback to that possibility. Jay Marden stated that he was under the impression that the Indian Falls Subdivision had been a Bussiere property. Ray Shea replied that it was not. Emile Bussiere clarified that he understood the property owned by the Dupuis Family Trust to be a large segment of this development plan and that he viewed himself as the “meat between the bread” of his abutting landowners. Jay Marden apologized stating that he had been incorrect in assuming that the Bussiere family owned the larger portion of property involved in this project, however, he wished to reiterate that the landowners involved should consider the donation of land by mutual agreement. Emile Bussiere replied that he agreed with Mr. Marden’s comments but wished to
state for the record that he was a lesser member of this group of landowners in relation to acreage owned.
The Chairman asked if there were any members of the Board who wished to comment. Gordon Carlstrom stated that the Town had historically made conscientious efforts to pursue conservation easements through donations or purchases of land as was evident by the significant stretch of wildlife corridor that had been secured from the vicinity of Old Coach Road to the Transfer Station running north west to south east. He noted that the proposed developments offered the potential of another corridor that the Town would like to see preserved. Gordon Carlstrom added that conservation easements currently existed in the location of Campbell Pond and along Bedford Road as well as on Christie and Bog Brook Roads and that an overall connection of these easements was the goal. Emile
Bussiere commented that Selectman Carlstrom seemed quite knowledgeable on this issue and that any recommendations filtered through Ray Shea would be duly considered. He noted that the other abutting landowners of this project should also be involved. Ray Shea noted that an easement area alongside the first phase of the Indian Falls subdivision which ran along Campbell Pond Road could be considered for extension along the larger proposed lots of the second phase with uplands. Gordon Carlstrom stated that the Conservation Commission would be a logical entity to contact regarding this issue. Ray Shea replied that he had already received ideas on the subject from the Conservation Commission. Gordon Carlstrom stated that the Subdivision Regulations lacked a green space requirement for cases such as this where subdivisions became proposed within subdivisions and the density became greater without any recreation of wildlife space set aside.
Douglas Hill asked if the applicant had considered an open space design or cluster as an alternate proposal. Ray Shea replied the applicant had not considered a cluster design and that the backlands of the lots proposed would not be built upon. He added that while cluster designs complimented certain properties this site would be adversely affected by such a design.
Emile Bussiere asked the Board’s thoughts regarding the re-zoning of his mobile home zoned parcel. Ray Shea noted that because the Town required a 150 foot setback from existing wetlands for structures and leach fields the Zoning Ordinance would prohibit mobile homes on this parcel anyway. The Chairman noted that the Town would most likely not be in favor of a mobile home park proposal.
Bob Furey stated that it would be helpful to have discussion on how the outlet location onto Bedford Road was chosen for the conceptual design. Ray Shea replied that continuing any further along Bedford Road would place the outlet that much closer to Klondike Korner and that in its present conceptual location better sight distance was presumed. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked the distance from the location of the road outlet onto Bedford Road and Klondike Korner. Ray Shea replied that this distance was approximately 600 to 700 feet which was far enough apart so that traffic flow between the two intersections would not be compromised.
The Chairman asked Ray Shea if he was aware of the letter from the Conservation Commission regarding suggestions for conservation easements on the properties involved. Ray Shea replied that he had seen this letter and that these suggestions would need to be considered by the owners as uplands were suggested as part of the easements. He noted that while a cluster design would accommodate the easements on uplands several cul-de-sacs would be needed versus a through-road. He added that the main road design proposed for the current applications could not be altered in its location due to existing slopes and the potential for greater cuts and fills.
Gordon Carlstrom asked what other issues had been raised at the last meeting with the applicant. Ray Shea replied that what was discussed this evening comprised the issues previously raised. He noted that the proposed 20 acre non-conforming lot of Indian Falls, LLC, did not comply with the Steep Slopes Ordinance, therefore, either a variance would be required or it could be attached to the lot across the street. Ray Shea added that the wetland impact of Tax Map/Lot #12/89 was 2,800 s.f. and had similar terrain to the first phase of the Indian Falls Subdivision. He further added that there were no issues regarding the physical viability of the proposed lots on Indian Falls Road nor were there site specific concerns. Ray Shea stated that the terminal end of the
road seemed to be a good point to begin a connection for extension of the road.
Jay Marden suggested that a conservation easement along the eastern side of Indian Falls Road could allow for the 20 acre non-conforming lot to be dedicated for recreational space. He added that in that way the Dupuis family could be expected to consider the same type of land donation. Ray Shea noted that the 20 acre lot was fairly rough terrain and could not accommodate more than a small playground area. Jay Marden noted that there were benefits to this type of terrain as it could lend itself to less organized recreation as he had taken part in when he was young.
The Coordinator asked if there was a proposal for fire fighting water supply in the subdivisions. Ray Shea replied that this had not yet been considered but that the applicants would abide by what the Town required. He noted that he was aware of the Town’s dual requirement for sprinklers and cisterns in some cases. Gordon Carlstrom explained that the Board had the discretion to require both means of fire protection in certain cases because, for example, out-buildings, barns and surrounding woodlands did not have the benefit of fire sprinkler systems. Ray Shea stated that he would discuss the proposals for fire safety systems with the applicants prior to the submittal of their final applications.
Gordon Carlstrom stated that the submittal of a conceptual build-out plan this evening kept things in better perspective. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked if the roadway plans had been updated since the last meeting. Ray Shea replied that they had not been and were still in the preliminary phase. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked if he could obtain a copy of these road plans. Ray Shea replied that he would supply a copy.
Ray Shea asked what studies would be required for the formal applications. He noted that the applicant believed it would be premature to include potential traffic impacts generated by a future build-out in the Traffic Impact Study for these applications since the lot zoned for mobile homes would need to be re-zoned prior to any considerations for a future expansion out to Bedford Road. Gordon Carlstrom noted that it would be helpful to have the future build-out potential mentioned briefly within the Traffic Study as the Town had plans to make upgrades to Bedford Road in the next few years. Ray Shea acknowledged this request.
Ray Shea asked if the Board would require a Fiscal Impact Study for the applications. The Chairman noted that this study always generated positive impact results which were becoming more difficult to believe with each application. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the Fiscal Impact Study should still be done along with the Environmental Impact Study. The Chairman clarified that all three Studies, Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact, would be required.
Ray Shea stated that the applicant would address all comments and move forward with the submittal of a final application.
James Nordstrom MOVED to conditionally approve the concept of the preliminary plan of Jaqueline Bussiere, Preliminary Hearing, Design Review, Major Subdivision, 13 Lots, Location: Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/88, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, and Indian Falls, LLC, Preliminary Hearing, Design Review, Major Subdivision, 6 Lots, Location: Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/89, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, and to inform the applicant to submit a completed application pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations. It is hereby pointed out to the applicant that a “Conditional approval of a preliminary plan shall be valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of such conditional approval, at
which time it shall become null and void unless the condition has been performed or not, or unless extended in writing by the Board.”
(Subdivision Regulations, Section IV-E, 9.) Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
NORTHERN SKY HOLDINGS by
DAVID CRAIG, MANAGER
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Law Office & Professional OFFICES
Location: 5 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #18/8
Commercial “COM” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was David Craig, manager of Northern Sky Holdings, LLC. No abutters or interested parties were present.
David Craig stated that he was present to discuss final compliance of the site and noted that Dennis Sarette, Building Inspector, was prepared to issue a Certificate of Occupancy when compliance was confirmed by the Board. He added that the parking area and exterior lighting per the plan specifics was complete. David Craig stated that due to a miscommunication with the Planning Coordinator he had not realized that the Board needed to formally view the site before the compliance hearing. He asked if it would be possible for the Board to view the site at some point this evening due to its close proximity. The Chairman replied that doing so would conflict with the terms of the Conditions Subsequent listed in the acceptance of Northern Sky Holding’s plan as this
clearly noted that the Board was required to view the site before a compliance hearing was held. David Craig stated that all the requirements of the Board regarding work to the site were fulfilled and that he was asking if, as a courtesy, the Board could view the site this evening in the interest of time. The Chairman replied that the Board would schedule the site walk this evening for a future date and time and would never interrupt a meeting to hold a site walk. David Craig noted that he had misunderstood the terms of that Conditions Subsequent item and this was not pointed out to him until the week prior when he was on vacation. James Nordstrom explained that the Board had experienced similar scenarios in the past and that they had never interrupted a meeting for a site walk nor had they ever gone against with the terms of the Conditions Subsequent for an applicant. Don Duhaime noted that even if Mr. Craig’s request were an option it was too
dark to see outside by this time. David Craig stated that the site was well lit and again asked that the Board grant his request as a courtesy. Travis Daniels stated that he would not want to set a precedent by doing so. David Craig asked if the site walk could be held at the end of this evening’s hearings. The Chairman replied that if this was done then future applicants would have a basis to make similar requests. He added that Mr. Craig, as a chairman of another board of the Town should realize why his request was inappropriate.
Douglas Hill asked what the soonest available date would be to hold a compliance site walk for Northern Sky Holdings, LLC. A site walk was scheduled for October 8, 2005, at 8:00 a.m. The Chairman asked that a representative of Northern Sky Holdings, LLC be present for the compliance site walk to answer any questions the Board might have. David Craig replied that he would be present.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn Northern Sky Holdings by David Craig, Manager, Compliance Hearing, NRSPR, Law Office and Professional Offices, Location: 5 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #18/8, Commercial “COM” District, to October 11, 2005, at 9:15 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
DIGNARD, ROGER
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Architectural Home Office
Location: 146 South Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #13/50
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He noted that this meeting had been cancelled by the applicant. A site walk was scheduled for October 8, 2005, at 8:30 a.m. +/-.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn Roger Dignard, Compliance Hearing, NRSPR, Architectural Home Office, Location: 146 South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/50, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to October 11, 2005, at 9:30 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
BRADLEY WILDE EDUCATIONAL VENTURES, LLC (OWNER)
STRONG, LYNN O. (APPLICANT)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Daycare Expansion
Location: 643 N. Mast Road
Tax Map/Lot #3/49
Commercial “Com” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Ray Shea Bo Strong, the applicant, Lynn Strong and the project manager Kristine Filteau. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Coordinator stated that the applicant was her sister-in-law and that she had performed the plan review with the aid of the Planning Assistant. She noted that if the Board preferred she could recuse herself for this meeting. The Chairman stated that he had no issue with the relationship between the Coordinator and the applicant. The Board unanimously accepted the impartiality of the Coordinator.
Ray Shea stated that this was a revised plan from that which was previously approved by the Board. He briefly noted that the site was an existing daycare facility located on three acres with frontage on North Mast Road. Ray Shea added that four additional approved parking spaces had been added to the site and the approved septic system had been installed. He noted shading on the current plan with the color brown being the existing structure and the color red, a proposed two story addition which would allow for the elimination of an existing modular structure in the rear of the daycare building. Ray Shea added that there were no changes proposed to the septic system, parking spaces, number of staff or the 175 approved numbers of children and that only the
configuration of the structure, noted in gray, was proposed. He further added that the applicant had received a renewal on their State Driveway Permit which had a term of one year. He explained that in the original application the existing and proposed square footage had been misrepresented and that the plan essentially proposed to double the size of the existing daycare from 6,000 s.f. to 12,000 s.f.
Gordon Carlstrom asked for clarification of the existing footprint of the daycare building.
Ray Shea replied that the existing footprint included the modular structure. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the proposed footprint was not symmetrical. Ray Shea explained that the structure was deeper in the rear portion. Gordon Carlstrom asked if fire and life safety issues had been addressed. Kristine Filteau replied that they were in the process of finalizing the fire safety proposals for the site.
Douglas Hill asked if the location of the well was ever changed. Ray Shea replied that the original well had remained and an easement for the well radius needed for the site plan had been obtained previously from an abutter. Douglas Hill asked if the parking spaces allocated were at the maximum. Ray Shea replied they were not and that the plan proposed parking to service 150 children and staff while the structure was designed to allow for 175. Lynn Strong noted that parking availability staggered throughout the day based on children being dropped off and picked up and that parents did not remain parked at the daycare for any length of time.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Bradley Wilde Educational Ventures, LLC (Owner) and Lynn Strong (Applicant), NRSPR, Daycare Expansion, Location: 643 N. Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/49, Commercial “Com” District as complete. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked the Board if they felt another site walk was necessary. Douglas Hill replied that he believed the changes made to the plan were issues for the Building Inspector and not the Board as no exterior site improvements had been altered on the plan. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the construction of the addition would be done in phases. Ray Shea replied that the front portion of the addition would be considered the first phase of construction and the rear section would be the second phase. Douglas Hill asked if any changes had been made to the new plan regarding egresses in and out of the building. Kristine Filteau replied that all additional space would have direct access to the outside.
The Chairman asked if there were any outstanding issues. The Coordinator replied that there were some changes to abutters listed. Ray Shea noted that the plan had contained several typos that needed correction and a note regarding the phases was to be added to the plan.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to approve the Application of Lynn O. Strong, for Non-Residential Site Plan, to expand the existing child daycare facility by constructing a 2,764 s.f. addition on the front of the existing building and a 3,621 s.f. addition on the back of the existing building in 2 phases, on land owned by Bradley Wilde Educational Ventures, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #3/49, 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 as noted at this hearing.
2. Submission of any revised driveway permit from the State of NHDOT. (if applicable).
3. Execution of a Site Review Agreement.
4. Submission of any outstanding fees for the application.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be October 30, 2005, confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, requiring no further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. All of the site improvements are to be completed per the approved site plan;
2. The two additions as shown on the site plan as Phase I and Phase II are to be constructed as separate phases;
3. 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 compliance hearing and the opening of the business on site;
4. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted prior to the compliance hearing;
5. 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 Permit to Operate or Certificate of Occupancy, or both for that phase. No occupancy/use of the day care facility additions 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 for Phase I shall be June 1, 2006, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing as noted in item 4 above. The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent for Phase II shall be November 1, 2006, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing as noted in item 4 above.
James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
DILLON, JULIE
Compliance Hearing
NRSPR/Boarding and Riding Stable
Location: 422 Riverdale Road
Tax Map/Lot #3/72
DILLON, cont.
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant, Julie Dillon. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Gordon Carlstrom stated that he believed the site was compliant based on what he observed at the compliance site walk. James Nordstrom agreed and noted that the manure storage area, parking signs and exterior lighting appeared to comply with the site plan. Julie Dillon thanked the Board for their assistance throughout her application process.
James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm that Julie Dillon has complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to operate a boarding and riding stable from the existing barn at 422 Riverdale Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/72, and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 8:10 p.m. the Planning Board took a five minute break.
DONALD E. GARRETSON (APPLICANT/OWNER) Adjourned from 7/26/05
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 were Bob Todd, LLS, Pat Panciocco, Esq., Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, and the applicant, Rick Martin. Abutters and interested parties present were Kim Burkhamer, Pat Golding, Mark Anderson, Mike Ryan, Esq., Jay Marden, Tom Clapp and Dwight Lovejoy.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that this application involved Tax Map/Lot #’s 5/52 and 5/50, which were located on the south side of Beard Road. He noted that this evening’s presentation would address activities by the applicant and regulatory agencies since the preliminary presentation held earlier in the year. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant had secured the NHDES Alteration of Terrain Permit along with NHDES Subdivision Approval and a registered trademark, “Whipple Farm At New Boston” issued by NHDS. He added that Earl Sandford of Sandford Survey and Engineering had been meeting with Town officials and had submitted design plans to address improvements to sight distance at the intersection of Beard Road and the proposed entrance to the site.
Bob Todd, LLS, further added that the Coordinator had reviewed the plan and the applicant had addressed those corrections which included a note to the plan referencing fire sprinklers and the inclusion of a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for lot development. He noted that the applicant would be submitting a waiver request for the submission sequence of the latter. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the plans had been reviewed by the Town Engineer and the applicant was in the process of preparing responses to that review. He added that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application had been submitted for the crossing of steep slopes on the site.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that Lot #5/50-9 on the south side of proposed Pinball Lane was 8.5 acres in size with the majority comprised of steep slopes. He added that the Piscataquog River Local Advisory Committee had addressed this issue with DES and suggested that the majority of that lot be restricted in order to protect vegetation and soils. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that he had hand drawn a dividing line which separated the steep slope area and the building area essentially splitting the lot in half. He noted that this alteration had been written into the deed of that lot to serve as a conservation restriction and that the attorney for the applicant would address the two statutes that were stated in the covenants. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that a conservation easement
for the site had been documented and addressed over 35 acres that was restricted from certain land uses.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the main issue of this application was the CUP and that all areas on the plan that would have impact in a Steep Slopes District had been noted. He explained that certain of these impacts related to proposed road construction while others related to construction of Lot #’s 5/50-19, 20 and 21 which were noted by yellow shading on the plan. Bob Todd, LLS, added that the level of impact to Steep Slopes ranged from 531 s.f to 33,000 s.f. for a combined total of 2.3 acres. He added that Zoning Regulations required each proposed lot be able to support its own driveway and that the CUP Application addressed that capability. Bob Todd, LLS, further added that Lot #5/50-21 had considerable Steep Slopes which were noted on the plan by dotted
shading. He noted that a driveway for this lot could run through a Steep Slopes area, have a minimum radius, required width and erosion measures and a grade not greater than the required 10% maximum. Bob Todd, LLS, further noted that Lot #’s 5/50-19 and 20 would see 531 s.f. of impact to steep slopes as a result of constructing the driveways and buildings. He explained that he proposed to avoid or reduce the amount of vegetation impact to these steep slopes by one third with a common driveway to service the six units of the three mentioned lots and that the common drive could be situated so that two of the aforementioned impacts to steep slopes were avoided keeping the vegetation intact with the driveway running parallel to the existing contours. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that in this scenario the length of the total driveway would be reduced by 450 feet and stormwater run-off would be considerably lessened. He added that the overall philosophy of
this proposal was to reduce impacts to the land. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he believed much had been accomplished since the first design meeting with the Board and that the waiver requested by the applicant was justified, therefore, it was possible that the application could be accepted as complete by the Board this evening.
The Chairman asked the length of the proposed common drive to its cul-de-sac. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the proposed length was approximately 760 feet which was 450 feet less than the road length previously proposed. He added that the common drive would be a private drive governed by a special condominium document and constructed to NFPA standards. The Chairman asked if the proposed condominium complex was still proposed for potential buyers age 55 and over. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that was correct and that there had been no changes made to the marketing philosophy of the proposed project. The Chairman asked what the grade of the roadway would be. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the grade would run 5% across the entire length. James Nordstrom noted
that in past situations the Board looked closely at environmental impact and this scenario was an example of a proposal that would decrease impacts. He added that from a usage standpoint common driveways were not the most desirable choice, however, the Board had historically weighed environmental impacts over usage. Gordon Carlstrom added that the applicant had presented the common driveway proposal in lieu of viable driveway as an option. The Chairman clarified that the applicant was required to prove that a driveway could be sustained by each lot and that had been done. He asked why the applicant had not considered having the common driveway be a roadway. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this would lessen the aesthetics of the drive because the road would then be wider with wider shoulders which could encourage faster driving speeds. The Chairman asked if condominium fees would cover plowing and mowing along the proposed common driveway. Rick
Martin replied that could be an option. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that this issue could be addressed. The Chairman noted that the maintenance responsibility should be clarified as it was in the case of condominium complexes. Rick Martin replied that a maintenance facility could also be established if needed to maintain the driveway and grounds. Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that while the proposed Pasture Road and Pinball Lane of the subdivision would be considered public roads, the private driveway proposed would be maintained by a common driveway easement. She explained that each unit owner on this common driveway would be responsible for maintaining their grounds unless the owners collectively chose to have it maintained by an outside party much like an association would do. Pat Panciocco, Esq., added that, individually, two occupants control each lot according to covenants and an easement would control the use of the driveway with a statement that
plowing and maintenance would be equally shared. She further added that this common ownership interest would be recorded with the Registry of Deeds and on each owner’s individual deed. The Chairman asked what a condominium fee would cover. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it would cover maintenance of the driveway unless the owners voted to establish a fund for its maintenance. Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that a declaration of covenants could be established for each lot or a master association could be established which all unit owners in the subdivision would belong to. She added that these options had been left open so that the applicant could get feedback from the Board on the subject. Pat Panciocco, Esq., noted that if individual
declarations of covenants were drawn and all occupants of the units on the proposed private drive had an ownership in the common land on the site there may be no condominium fees applied and instead a collective fee could be shared among Lot #’s 19 through 21.
Gordon Carlstrom asked what the difference was between a duplex and a condominium. Pat Panciocco, Esq., replied that a duplex was considered to be a whole unit and in the applicant’s case the condominiums proposed were half of one unit. Interested party, Mark Anderson asked how many months of meetings it would take before the Board realized that the applicant’s proposal was not sensible for the Town based on the existing steep slopes and the characteristics of Beard Road. He likened the scenario to requesting to build a house for an elephant out of cards and noted that the applicant was simply rephrasing what was truly a cul-de-sac as a condominium driveway for six units. Mark Anderson asked what the case would be if unit neighbors did not get along and
who would resolve such issues. He noted that the applicant
kept revising the plan at each meeting with the Board and wondered how long the Board would allow that to continue. Mark Anderson stated that he was concerned over the possibility of 80 new elderly drivers to the Town that this proposal would generate and the safety issues that would pose. The Chairman replied that although he understood Mark Anderson’s concerns he could not give him an answer as to how long this application would continue as the applicant had a right to propose his project to the Board. Mark Anderson questioned how the Board could viably consider 40 condominiums on a dirt road. He recalled that when he had been a member of the Planning Board he did not like to see applicants revising and reworking their plan over and over again as it seemed to be a waste of their efforts and money.
The Chairman recalled that the example case Mark Anderson was alluding to was eventually approved by that Board. Mark Anderson asked at what point the public’s dissatisfaction would halt this application. The Chairman replied that would never happen as this application was not up for a vote by the public and the applicant had a right to revise his plan to what could legally fit with the Subdivision Regulations. He added that the Board had, in the past, overridden an applicant’s compliance with Subdivision Regulations because a plan proposal seemed unreasonable. The Chairman further added that, in the applicant’s case, the plan revisions kept improving and it was his right to continue in that mode if he chose. Gordon Carlstrom wished to note that input by abutters was important and not discounted. He added that he was not pleased with the proposed density of the condominium units proposed and at this point would not look
favorably on the application. Gordon Carlstrom noted that although this project might be feasible he was concerned about its fiscal impacts to the Town and thought that its existence would contribute heavily to the formation of a full-time Fire Department in the next 10 years. James Nordstrom recalled that from the plan’s conceptual design he and other Board members had been concerned about density, location and its access point off an existing road. He noted that the Board had not hidden these concerns and if the applicant had chosen to rework his plan around those concerns it was his right.
Douglas Hill asked what the selling price would be for each unit. Rick Martin replied that it would be approximately $299,900.00. Douglas Hill noted that he understood the concerns of the abutters, however, with the extensive growth of New Hampshire towns many older residents could not afford to sell their larger home and stay within the same town as there was not a variety of housing options for older people. Interested party Pat Golding noted that the homes of abutters and nearby residents would be lowered in value as a result of this condominium complex being built. The Chairman thought this was hard to believe. Pat Golding added that the existing homes he referred to were on 11 acre lots and this proposal was not responsible growth management for the Town.
Mike Ryan, Esq., stated that he represented the abutters to this proposal and that he questioned the idea of having each unit in the proposed condominium complex under its own condominium association or an overall association. He noted that the two options presented were completely different. Gordon Carlstrom asked Mike Ryan, Esq., to further clarify his question. Mike Ryan, Esq., explained that if three buildings were serviced by their separate condominium associations then disagreements between the three were likely to arise over payments for maintenance, plowing, asphalt replacement on the private drive, etc. He added that he did not understand how these issues would be agreed upon by six families and noted that he was a part of a condominium association of 14
families which did not operate efficiently. Mike Ryan, Esq., stated that the common drive was also an issue noting that if it were wider it would be defined as a cul-de-sac road. He suggested that if the applicant sought to protect the environment he should build single family homes on a road built to Town standards not condominiums. Mike Ryan, Esq., added that, in his opinion, the applicant was trying to maximize his profit with his proposal and if this project came to fruition there would be much discontent among potential unit owners. He questioned how the multiple associations proposed would be assured to have enough money for maintaining their roofs, etc. Mike Ryan, Esq., added that the Town would have a lot of trouble with this type of neighborhood if the plan was approved as presented. He also questioned the reason behind the waiver for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan requested by Bob Todd, LLS, and asked if it was
submitted in writing. The Chairman replied that it had been submitted in writing to the Board and that the waiver was requested for the sequence of submittal for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
Jay Marden asked for clarification on the proposed design of the plan and what covenants would protect the open space on the site. Pat Panciocco, Esq., replied that the design was based on individual lots where each lot owner had one-twentieth ownership interest and one-fortieth ownership in the common land. She added that any public roads within the condominium complex would be maintained by the Town and each lot would have its own declaration of condominium covenants. Pat Panciocco, Esq., noted that each unit owner would share the walls and roof of the whole structure. She added that a master condominium declaration would be required by the Town in order to enforce improvements on the common land. Jay Marden asked if violations on the common land by owners
would prompt the Town or Planning Board to sue the 40 owners or have a lien placed on their property. Pat Panciocco, Esq., replied that the homeowners association would be responsible to rectify any violation of restrictions on the common land. Jay Marden asked what would happen if the homeowners association did not rectify such an issue. Pat Panciocco, Esq., replied that if an environmental violation was the case
then DES would become involved. The Chairman offered the example of a lot owner parking an RV on a lot that was equipped with tire chains which could cause considerable damage to the proposed private drive. Pat Panciocco, Esq., replied that such an issue would apply to the units serviced by that common driveway and it would be a civil matter between those parties. The Chairman asked what the case would be if an RV were parked in the woods on the site. Pat Panciocco, Esq., replied that if that were considered to be a violation then the homeowners association would be responsible for rectifying it. She added that the Town could also impose costs onto the homeowners of the complex for not complying with the restrictions in place. Bob Todd, LLS, added that at that point liens could be placed on
owners’ property. Jay Marden noted that he hoped the condominium documents for this proposal accurately reflected the ability of the Town to enforce such covenants. Gordon Carlstrom stated that this was similar to taxes not being paid on open space within a development by one owner which then affected all
homeowners of that development. Mike Ryan, Esq., did not see why common space was proposed when the proposed lots were adequate in size. The Chairman noted that the Town was able to tax on common land.
Interested party Tom Clapp noted that there had been no discussion this evening regarding Beard Road which could need improvements for sight distance at the proposed entrance to the condominium complex. The Chairman agreed that this was a key factor and could solve the density issue as the capacity of residents of the complex could determine what road improvements would be realistic. Interested party Dwight Lovejoy asked if the $300K price previously mentioned was for each side of the condominium building or the whole structure. Rick Martin replied that this price was for each side.
Rick Martin noted that he was able to construct single driveways for the lots in lieu of extending a driveway to become a common driveway, however, he had hoped that the Town would prefer the single design as it created less impact. The Chairman stated that most of the Board’s concern centered on the common drive servicing 6 units rather than three. Gordon Carlstrom agreed. The Chairman asked the grade of the proposed common drive if the middle lot was used for a driveway to two lots, leaving the third with its own driveway. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the middle lot’s driveway would be 10% although the cuts and fills would not be as deep.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that he thought the focus of tonight’s discussion was whether the application could be accepted as complete. He believed that once the applicant had reached this point of acceptance more discussion on design could follow. The Chairman noted that this plan had much history and it had become confusing as to what design was being proposed over time. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the Board would be required to act on the paperwork that was submitted adding that Site Specific and State approvals had been secured in order to move toward an acceptance of completion by the Board. He asked if there were any items on the applications that could be considered incomplete this evening. The Coordinator stated that the
applicant’s waiver request needed to be acted upon. James Nordstrom asked if the bond estimate had been submitted. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it had been. The Chairman clarified that the applicant, in his waiver, was asking for a delay of submittal on the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that was the case, until the submittal of the condominium site plan. He added that this rationale had been submitted to the Bord in writing. Don Duhaime noted that if the bond estimate had not been submitted within the last seven days, procedurally, the Board could not act on the application tonight. Earl Sandford noted that an actual cost for the project could not be determined until discussion on its design was finalized. The Chairman noted that the estimate had been submitted, regardless. The Chairman clarified that the bond estimate would need to have been submitted 15 days prior to tonight’s
meeting in order for the Board to consider the application complete. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, asked if a verbal request for a waiver could be made. The Chairman asked Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, what he believed would be gained by having the application accepted as complete this evening. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that this meeting could then be considered more meaningful. He added that he was uncomfortable with having the Town Engineer review multiple designs before the application was complete. The Chairman noted that this had been the applicant’s choice. Rick Martin stated that the Road Committee had requested to review the road plan if it was prepared. The Chairman reiterated that the applicant’s risk was understood early on when they requested preliminary reviews by the Town Engineer. Rick Martin asked if a waiver for submittal sequence of the road bond estimate could be requested as that figure was usually determined
later in the process and other applications had been approved without it in the past. He added that after Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s review such an estimate could change. The Chairman asked the Board their thoughts regarding this request. Don Duhaime believed that the Board should remain consistent in the submittal of such requirements. Gordon Carlstrom agreed. The Chairman explained that it had recently been pointed out to the Board that the submittal process of items for an application followed a legal statutory time line. Gordon Carlstrom added that there was no disadvantage to the applicant in waiting to the next meeting as he thought with an application of this complexity the Board’s 60 day deadline for action would probably need to be extended regardless. Pat Panciocco, Esq., wished to clarify that the reason for the delay in accepting the application as complete was due to the delay in the submittal of the bond estimate.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, thought that it was unreasonable to require that the cost of a project be submitted beforehand rather than later. The Chairman again asked the applicant why they felt it was important to accept the application as complete this evening. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that with a completed application they would be afforded some direction as to how to pursue the plan design and necessary condominium documents. He added that if the action on the waiver requested was given then the applicant would have more direction on how to deal with Lot #’s 19 through 21. The Chairman noted that no motion of acceptance was required in order to grant the waiver. James Nordstrom added that if the bond estimate had been submitted within the 15 day statutory time frame then the application could have been accepted as complete this evening. The Chairman clarified that accepting an application as complete did not mean that it was approved. Gordon Carlstrom did not think the
applicant would have a clearer direction if the waiver was granted this evening, however, he stated that he had no issue in granting the waiver requested for the sequence of submittal regarding the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to accept the waiver to Section V-V of the Subdivision Regulations in a letter by Bob Todd, LLS, for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan relative to lot development with the understanding that this Plan would be submitted later in the application process as part of the site plan. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Rick Martin asked how he should proceed with the driveway design on the plan. The Chairman replied that he preferred the aesthetics of the common driveway over individual driveways and asked the grades of each. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the proposed common driveway would be at a grade of 10% or less while a roadway to support individual driveways would be 5%. The Chairman stated that the Subdivision Regulations required that a proposed lot be able to support its own driveway, which the applicant had proved, and that if a common driveway was feasible it could be allowed. He added that he could not justify allowing a common driveway for that many units. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the Town had new requirements for numbering homes and that more than three units
on a driveway would qualify as a road. Bob Todd, LLS, asked if units or lots were considered. Gordon Carlstrom replied that he believed it was units. The Chairman noted that he did not want to suggest that the Board would not consider the common driveway proposal further.
Pat Panciocco, Esq., again clarified that the single reason that the application was not accepted as complete this evening was due to the late submittal of the bond estimate. The Chairman replied that was correct. Gordon Carlstrom read text from the Numbering Ordinance to clarify whether units versus houses was implied. He noted that based on the Ordinance this inference was open to interpretation regarding condexes and that he would have this clarified for the next meeting with the applicant. Pat Panciocco, Esq., asked if there was any additional information the Board would like prepared by the applicant for the next scheduled meeting. Gordon Carlstrom asked that the applicant prepare a discussion as to how the condominium agreements will work for the complex. Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that she would do so for the next meeting. Mike Ryan, Esq., noted that he was particularly interested in the language that would restrict the development to persons 55 and older.
Gordon Carlstrom 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 October 25, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board as his item was up next.
8. A copy of a letter dated August 28, 2005, from the New Boston Fire Wards to the New Boston Planning Department, Re: Douglas Hill Subdivision, Francestown Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/16, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Present for this item was Cliff Plourde, and Dan Teague of the Board of Fire Wards. Cliff Plourde stated that in response to information provided by the Planning Board the Fire Wards preferred that the proposed Douglas Hill subdivision be installed with fire sprinklers because of its size and density along with the absence of a large water supply in that area of the Town. He added that the Fire Wards also requested the installation of a 30,000 gallon cistern to cover non-sprinklered structures. Cliff Plourde further added that the Fire Wards would prefer a second means of access from the proposed cul-de-sac road in the event that the entrance to the
road became blocked. Dan Teague noted that a secondary access would allow the occupants an escape route in the case of a wild land fire situation. He added that underground utilities were also discussed so that if a tree were to fall the road would not be closed off. Douglas Hill noted that he had opted to do underground utilities. The Chairman asked where the Fire Wards would like the 30,000 gallon cistern located. Dan Teague replied that they would need to review topography and road measurements, however, they would prefer that the cistern was within 2,200 truck travel feet of the proposed subdivision. Cliff Plourde noted that it would be ideal to have the cistern centrally located. The Chairman noted that although cul-de-sacs were not preferred by the Fire Wards they would be satisfied if fire
sprinkler systems were installed in the homes along with a cistern and underground utilities for the subdivision. He added that the Board had deemed a second means of access possible for the cul-de-sac road onto Route 136, however, this would greatly impact the aesthetics of the site as the current plan renders the subdivision almost undetectable from Route 136 with the exception of two houses. The Chairman noted that the remaining subdivision was cloaked by green space which added to the beauty of the existing farm on the property. Cliff Plourde stated that the biggest problem with access was due to the possibility of power lines coming down and now that the utilities were proposed underground this was not a major issue. Dan Teague agreed and noted that the cul-de-sac proposed would provide a good turn-around area for fire trucks. The Chairman recalled that an abutter discussed frontage off Dennison Road at a prior meeting with the applicant, however, it
was determined that this frontage was not pat of the applicant’s property. Douglas Hill added that this frontage was part of his original intent, however, it was no longer an option due to the property lines.
Jay Marden stated that he thought if fire sprinklers were proposed then cisterns were not necessary. Dan Teague replied that the Fire Wards had the ability to suggest cisterns as supplemental fire fighting when they felt there would be a benefit. He added that given the location of the proposed subdivision the placement of a 30,000 gallon cistern would allow a greater time frame for refilling in the event of a fire emergency. The Chairman asked the location of the nearest water supply. Dan Teague replied that it was at the intersection of Tucker Mill and Middle Branch Roads on a seasonal basis. The Chairman asked what the case would be if it was winter. Dan Teague replied the Fire Department then drew water from hydrants in the Town center. Jay
Marden thought that the options between sprinklers and cisterns were misleading if both were being required in certain cases. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the possibility of a cistern requirement never dissipated and that the Town reserved the right to require them as supplemental. Dan Teague stated that houses situated on a long cul-de-sac road were at a higher risk in the event of a fire. Jay Marden stated that he understood the theory but thought the option should be either/or. Travis Daniels noted that with both fire sprinkler system and a cistern fire fighting manpower was eased. Jay Marden felt that this requirement would set a precedent and should be required on all subdivision applications. The Chairman noted that every home in New Boston is built in the woods and they all have garages that are not protected by fire sprinkler systems. He added that the requirement for both modes of fire protection was reserved for extraordinary
circumstances. Dan Teague stated that he preferred both modes of
fire protection as fire sprinkler systems saved lives unless a fire was burning from the outside of a house.
The Chairman stated that the letter of recommendation from the Board of Dire Wards demonstrated the rationale to require both fire sprinklers and a cistern and that it was not the Board’s desire to go against this recommendation. He wished to state for the record that this case would not be setting a precedent for requiring both modes of fire safety for all subdivision applications going forward and that such a requirement needed strong rationale to support it.
Don Duhaime asked the length of the proposed cul-de-sac. Douglas Hill replied that it was 2,800 feet. Don Duhaime asked what the longest proposed cul-de-sac was in the Town. Gordon Carlstrom replied that this would be the longest. Douglas Hill noted that there were cases in Mont Vernon and Weare of even longer cul-de-sacs. The Chairman read paragraph #2 of the letter of recommendation by the Board of Fire Wards: “***********” Douglas Hill asked if the cistern could be 10,000 gallons versus 30,000 since fire sprinklers were also being required. Dan Teague reiterated that the proposed subdivision was far from the nearest water source. James Nordstrom noted that the cost difference between a 10,000 gallon cistern and a 30,000 gallon
cistern was the delivery fee from the manufacturer. He added that the Board had recently approved a subdivision where fire sprinklers and a cistern would be required based on the recommendation of the Fire Department. Travis Daniels stated that from a homeowner’s perspective the presence of fire safety devices saved money on insurance and for the Fire Department. Gordon Carlstrom believed that the incremental cost to add both devices to the subdivision would be approximately $2,200.00 per lot. Douglas Hill stated that he had no issue adding both but had been under the assumption that it would be one or the other. Cliff Plourde stated that in this case the Fire Department would face a lack of water without a cistern and with a cistern they would not need to rely heavily on a secondary supply of water or mutual aid from other towns in the event of a fire. He noted that there was no master water plan nor would there be a hydrant system in the
Town. Jay Marden recalled a previous discussion about the Town needing to locate cisterns in areas where there are existing farms and open land. He noted that because the Town was not currently addressing this issue it was his understanding that an applicant chose one of the two methods of fire protection in subdivision proposals. James Nordstrom replied that the Subdivision Regulations were clear in that by requiring a 30,000 gallon cistern for a proposed subdivision the Regulation would be met, however, if fire sprinkler systems were chosen then a cistern could still be required.
The Chairman clarified that the subdivision was a cluster design and the existing farm would remain on site surrounded by open land that was governed by covenants and taxes shared equally by lot owners. Douglas Hill noted that the open land would not be in current use. The Chairman stated that the Board would need to further discuss the road design based on underground utilities. Gordon Carlstrom asked that the Fire Wards base their next recommendation letter on the inclusion of underground utilities and a cistern. Douglas Hill stated that he was open for discussion on the subject as he wished to begin the engineering design of the road. He added that he would abide by the Board’s recommendations. Jay Marden stated that he was concerned that this
was a case of a well designed subdivision in contrast to others that sought to maximize density and not provide cisterns. He added that this applicant should not be required to have additional fire safety systems when other applicants were not. The Chairman stated that the Board was not prepared to make a determination on the fire fighting systems this evening. Gordon Carlstrom asked that the Fire Wards decide on a recommendation based on the proposed cul-de-sac with underground utilities. Dan Teague stated that a vote by the Fire Wards would be required. Cliff Plourde thought the scenario presented for the subdivision was rational.
James Nordstrom asked if the Fire Wards would entertain the proposal of a secondary access to the proposed cul-de-sac road that was substandard to Class V road status and if this would be useful or burdensome. Dan Teague thought that if all-season access was assured this could be beneficial. Cliff Plourde noted that if the access was closed by gates or bars and not easily maintained then it could be burdensome to the Fire Department. He added that a good example of a secondary access would be a looped road or a road that tied into the cul-de-sac. The Chairman stated that it was the consensus of the Board that the applicant wait on the engineering of the road design until the Fire Wards submitted further opinion. James Nordstrom noted that the Fire Wards were
not at the point of having a final answer on the subject. Cliff Plourde noted that an official meeting and vote by the Fire Wards would need to take place. Dan Teague asked if Dane Road was close to the length of the proposed cul-de-sac. James Nordstrom replied that it was. Dan Teague stated that he would check with John Bunting on that subject. Douglas Hill asked if he provided fire sprinklers, a cistern and underground utilities to the proposed subdivision if the Fire Wards would look favorably on the cul-de-sac length. Dan Teague and Cliff Plourde, speaking as individuals of the Fire Wards, replied that in this scenario they would be favorable. The Chairman added that he liked the cul-de-sac design presented which was not usually the case.
Douglas Hill reclaimed his seat on the Board.
1. Approval of the minutes of August 9, 2005, with or without changes, distributed at the August 23, 2005, meeting. (No Copies)
Gordon Carlstrom noted that Dorothy Fillmore’s name was listed twice as being present in the audience.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of August 9, 2005, as amended. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of August 23, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of October 11, 2005, with or without changes.
3. Driveway Permit Application for Donald and Kathleen Prouty, Middle Branch & Old Saunders Hill Roads, Tax Map/Lot #2/98, for the Board’s action.
(Drive-by prior to meeting.)
James Nordstrom stated that he had viewed the above noted driveway and saw no issues. The Coordinator noted that the only access is from a Class VI road for which the Proutys obtained a variance to secure the permit. James Nordstrom asked if the Road Agent had given his approval. The Coordinator replied that he had.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #05-046,
for, Tax Map/Lot #2/98, for a proposed driveways, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of
twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
4. Endorsement of a Site Review Agreement for Thomas and Christine Quirk, Friendly Beaver Campground, Cochran Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/11, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman signed the above noted Site Review Agreement.
5. Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for Susana LeClair Revocable Trust, Bedford Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/24, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Coordinator noted that the Subdivision Agreement contained the sprinkler requirement. The Chairman then signed the above noted Subdivision Agreement.
6. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Karen M. Morin Revocable Trust, Greenfield Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/74, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
This item was addressed at the end of the meeting as there were multiple signatures required.
7. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for 13-15 Hopkins Road, Inc., Hopkins & Salisbury Roads, Tax Map/Lot #13/15, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
This item was addressed at the end of the meeting as there were multiple signatures required.
9. A copy of a letter received September 9, 2005, from Louis and Trudy Nixon, to New
Boston Planning Board, Re: Performance Bond, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
A site walk was scheduled for October 8, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. The Coordinator asked if the deadline for the Board’s action on the application could be extended due to the fact that correspondence from the Planning Department had been going to Janet Nixon and was inadvertently not forwarded in a timely manner to Louis and Trudy Nixon.
James Nordstrom MOVED to extend the conditions subsequent for the application of Louis and Trudy Nixon, to October 31, 2005. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
10. A copy of a letter received September 14, 2005, from Geoffrey Katz to New Boston Planning Board, Re: New Boston Health & Wellness Center, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator suggested that the Board could considered review of a 6 month water monitoring to assure that the figures presented by Mr. Katz were in line. James Nordstrom stated that he was comfortable with the information provided in a letter by Pennoni Associates which confirmed the water usage predicted on site.
James Nordstrom MOVED that the Planning Board agreed with the letter from Pennoni Associates regarding the use of water monitoring for six months at the Apple Barn to determine that the water usage figures previously submitted by Geoffrey Katz are accurate for the proposed use of said facility by a health and wellness center. The applicant is to present the results to the Planning Board to confirm that the existing septic system is also adequate for the proposed use.
Gordon Carlstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
11. A copy of a letter received September 21, 2005, from Tim Burnham, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: driveway crossings, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that Mr. Burnham had an approved CUP for a driveway relocation on his property, however, for reasons unknown he was no longer moving forward with that project and was requesting a refund of his security.
James Nordstrom MOVED to revoke the Driveway Permit Application and recently Conditional Use Permit approved by the Board based on Tim Burnham’s letter of request received September 21, 2005, and to refund his security. Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
12a. A copy of a letter received September 6, 2005, from Betsey Dodge, New Boston Conservation Commission, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: Twin Bridge Road, Tax
Map/Lot #2/62-4, Wetlands Inspection, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
This item was addressed in 12b.
12b. A copy of a letter received September 6, 2005, from Dennis Sarette, Code Enforcement Official, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: 341 Twin Bridge Road, Tax Map/Lot #2/62-4, Wetlands Inspection, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that the property owners of Tax Map/Lot #2/62-4 had cut a substantial number of trees along the roadside and on their property in order to access a paddock area on site and had also put gravel through the ditchline on the side of Twin Bridge Road. She added that Dennis Sarette had stated that if this construction was intended to serve as a permanent driveway then a Driveway Permit was needed. Gordon Carlstrom stated that the gravel would need to be removed from the ditchline. The Coordinator noted that if the lot had 200 feet of frontage between the new driveway and the existing driveway then the access to the paddock could serve as a secondary driveway. Gordon Carlstrom stated that the frontage on this lot was not more than 100 feet.
James Nordstrom stated that a letter should be sent to the property owners informing them that if they intended this access to be permanent then they would need to apply for a Driveway Permit. Gordon Carlstrom thought that the property owners should be informed that because they did not have the required 200 feet of frontage they would not be able to acquire a Driveway Permit for this access and should pull out the gravel they placed in the ditchline and restore the site to its original condition. The Chairman clarified that the property owners should be informed that they would need to restore the site and if they wished to have a secondary access on their lot they would need to apply for it. Gordon Carlstrom noted that a proposed secondary driveway in that area might also need a culvert.
13. A copy of a faxed letter received September 14, 2005, from Joseph Swiezynski, II, 13-15 Hopkins Road, Inc., to the New Boston Planning Board, Re: sale of 13-15 Hopkins Road Subdivision, was distributed for the Board’s information.
James Nordstrom commented that the drainage issue of one half of a CFS did not seem to be an issue with the Town Engineer any longer as they had signed off on the plan. The Coordinator agreed. Gordon Carlstrom asked the length of Kettle Lane. The Coordinator replied that it was between 500-600 feet.
14. A copy of a letter received September 13, 2005, from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to New Boston Planning Board, Re: fill material for Hutchinson Lane, was distributed for the Board’s information.
15. A copy of a fax received August 30, 2005, from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to New Boston Planning Board, Re: fill material for Hutchinson Lane, was distributed for the Board’s information.
16. A copy of a letter received August 31, 2005, from the State of New Hampshire, DES, Re: Seff Enterprises & Holdings, Tax Map/Lot #8/84, Wetlands and Non-Site Specific Permit, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that Joe Foistner had apparently requested a letter from DES informing him when the dredge and fill needed to be completed for the permitted project. Gordon Carlstrom noted that if the original Dredge and Fill Permit expired Mr. Foistner could apply for a new one to allow installation of a second wetland crossing in place of the recently discussed bridge span on Lot #8/84-30-1. The Board wondered if this was the intent.
17. A copy of a letter received September 13, 2005, from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc. to New Boston Planning Board, Re: Forest View (Nissitissit) items to complete prior to road acceptance, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that Amy Alexander had been addressing items on various roads bound for acceptance such as in the above noted subdivision.
18. A copy of a letter received September 16, 2005, from Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to Rick Bachand, R.J., Moreau, Re: remaining work list, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that the remaining work list was a lengthy one.
19. A copy of a letter received September 19, 2005, Wetlands and Non Site Specific Permit 2005-01726, Town of New Boston, Bog Brook Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
20. The Street and Numbering Ordinance was distributed for the Board’s information.
21. A copy of a letter received September 16, 2005, from Jay L. Marden to New Boston Planning Board, Re: proposed Driveway Regulations, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman read Mr. Marden’s letter aloud which focused on his recommendation that proposed driveways be restricted to sight distances of 200 feet or less on a case by case basis.
22. A copy of a memorandum dated September 14, 2005, from the Board of Selectmen, to Town Employees, Re: Lt. Lamy Resignation, was distributed for the Board’s
information.
23. Daily road inspection reports dated, July 21st, July 22nd, and 29th of 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Indian Falls, were distributed for the Board’s information.
24. Daily road inspection reports dated, July 14th, July 26th, and 28th of 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Hutchinson Lane, were distributed for the Board’s information.
25. A copy of a memorandum dated September 6, 2005, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Peter Hogan, Planning Board, Re: Capital Improvements Plan Process, was distributed for the Board’s information. Meeting schedule to be discussed.
The Coordinator explained that two members of the Planning Board were required to sit on the CIP Committee which held approximately four meetings in total each year. She suggested that alternate Tuesdays when the Planning Board was not in session might be convenient for Planning Board members who wished to volunteer although Thursday nights as in past years might be more suitable for some Committee members. Don Duhaime and Douglas Hill volunteered for these positions.
26. Discussion re: procedures for Planning Board alternates.
The Coordinator wished to clarify that if alternates were not appointed as voting members of the Planning Board they could not vote on hearings, however, they were able to vote on Miscellaneous Business items. James Nordstrom noted that at least three full voting members were required up to a maximum number of five.
A brief sidebar discussion was held on blasting procedures. Travis Daniels, who was in the blasting business, noted that courtesy calls to abutters could be made to inform them of when blasting would occur, however, it was not a requirement. The Chairman added that in many cases people thought the Planning Board should supply blasting schedules which was not something they wished to be involved in. Travis Daniels stated that would be another burden on Town services.
27. Discussion re: Driveway Regulations, work session to be scheduled.
The Coordinator explained that a work session was scheduled for October 11, 2005, and that input submitted from interested parties would be discussed at that time. She added that the Board could call for no verbal public input at that meeting and then a subsequent public hearing could be scheduled. The Coordinator noted that it would be productive if the Board refuted certain comments made at the last public hearing on Driveway Regulations such as comments by Attorney Pollack, Dave Elliot’s recommendations for 200 feet of sight distance. She added that at the next scheduled public hearing the Board should be more informed of the content of the Driveway Regulations. Gordon Carlstrom felt there were four main issues to deal with: sight distance, terms,
grandfathered driveways and paving only procedures.
The Coordinator asked if Attorney Pollack’s submitted statement should be reviewed by Town Counsel. James Nordstrom thought this was a good idea and that it would be helpful if Town Counsel could refute some of Attorney Pollack’s opinions. The Coordinator referenced Brandy Mitroff’s statements at the prior public hearing regarding sight distance and the fact that the Road Agent had told her that he would consider the approval of proposed driveways with only 200 feet of sight distance if they were located on small cul-de-sacs versus main artery roads such as Bedford Road. She noted that such discussion had never come before the Board by the Road Agent and that this information should be clarified and submitted in writing. The Board agreed.
28. Discussion re: Steep Slopes Committee-minutes attached.
The Coordinator asked that the Board read through these minutes to see if the Committee was headed in the right direction regarding amendments to the Steep Slopes Ordinance. She noted that the minutes seemed to reflect discussion that differed greatly from what the Committee originally proposed. The Coordinator noted that the Committee had moved towards allowing development anywhere in Town as long as an engineer determined it buildable. James Nordstrom stated that it appeared that the Committee was not revising the current Ordinance and instead was creating a new one which is not what the Planning Board asked them to do. He added that it could damage the integrity of the Board if a new document with a different direction was devised and the Board then approved it. The Coordinator suggested that the Board read the Committee minutes on an ongoing basis to keep things on track.
29. Read File: Town of Pembroke, ZBA Notice of Decision.
30. Read File: Town of Pembroke, ZBA Notice of Decision.
31. Read File: Memo received September 19, 2005, from Southern NH Planning Commission to Planning Board Chairs, Re: Special Water Supply Forum, Wednesday, October 12, 2005.
32. Read File: Copy of a letter received September 2, 2005, from State of NH, Department of Transportation, Re: Bureau of Planning and Community Assistance.
33. Read File: Letter received September 2, 2005, from Office of Energy and Planning to Municipal Land Use Boards, Re: Information Packet/Registration materials for 2005 Fall Planning & Zoning Conference.
34. Read File: Flyer received August 30, 2005, from Local Government Center to New Boston Planning Board Chairman, Re: registration for 2005 Municipal Law Lecture
Series.
35. Read File: Copy of NH Sunday News Article, September 4, 2005, Re: local towns growth lawsuit.
36a. A copy of an Email received September 26, 2005, from Jessica Haddad, Carriage Road, Re: Carriage Road construction, was distributed for the Board’s information.
36b. A copy of an Email received September 26, 2005, from David Moore, Carriage Road, Re: Carriage Road construction, was distributed for the Board’s information.
37. Endorsement of Condominium Site Plan for Right Way Builders, Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/52-1, for the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Site Plan.
38. Schedule a compliance site walk for Roger Dignard, 146 South Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #13/50.
The Chairman stated that this site walk was scheduled earlier this evening.
39. A copy of a letter dated September 23, 2005, from NHDES to the New Boston Town Clerk, re: Site Specific for Vista Road, LLC, was distributed for the Board’s information.
6. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Karen M. Morin Revocable Trust, Greenfield Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/74, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.
7. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for 13-15 Hopkins Road, Inc., Hopkins & Salisbury Roads, Tax Map/Lot #13/15, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.
At 11:10 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
| 
