The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Bob Furey, Travis Daniels; ex-officio Christine Quirk; and, alternates Don Duhaime and Douglas Hill. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nicola Strong, Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, Paul Carideo Neil Smith, Dave Elliot, Mitch Larochelle, Larry Pothier, John Riendeau, Jonathan and Jessica Willard, Burt and Wilene Knight, Colleen Jorczak, Amy Rheault-Heafield, Nancy Biederman, Mike Dahlberg, LLS, Todd Connors, PE, Paul Morin, Donna Gibbons, Susan Woodward, Jed Callen, Esq., Dick and Betsy Moody, George St. John, Wayne and Barry Charrest, Brandy Mitroff, Rick Martin and Sara Hogan.
HARVEY DUPUIS FAMILY TRUST Adjourned from 4/26/05
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/6 Lots
Location: Carriage Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/93 & 12/93-22
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Paul Carideo, Project Manager, Neil Smith, Dave Elliot, Larry Pothier and Mitch Larochelle. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Paul Carideo submitted revised color copies of the plan to the Board. He noted that since the last meeting with the Board Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had provided plan review comments to the applicant in their letter dated April 27, 2005 which had been addressed. Paul Carideo added that an additional letter dated April 23, 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., noted several minor outstanding items which the applicant wanted to review with the Board including sight lines from the proposed roadway due to the fact that Carriage Road did not have the correct vertical curves. He noted that this item had been corrected on the plan. Paul Carideo stated that another issue was that the Town Engineer was suggesting the installation of a “Stop ahead” sign and/or a sign warning of the curve on the proposed
road. He added that he had no problem adding those where the Road Agent and Dufresne-Henry, Inc., thought appropriate but wondered if a note to the plan might be more appropriate rather than risking inaccurate placement of the signs on the plan.
Bob Furey asked if the vertical curve previously discussed involved the left hand turn from the proposed road going west on Carriage Road. Paul Carideo explained that the sight distance was not adequate on that portion of the proposed road due to its abrupt turn and grade change which could be seen on sheet #15 of the plan. He added that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had noted that the south western sight line for proposed Susan Road did not meet AASHTO’s requirements and suggested smoothing out this curve by introducing vertical curves. As a result, Paul Carideo explained that a section of Carriage Road would be reconstructed and lowered to assure this sight distance.
Paul Carideo stated that comment #5 of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s, letter dealt with the slope on the easement of the proposed driveway for Lot #12/93-20. He noted that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had recommended the placement of boulders and trees in this location as visual barriers, however, their letter of April 23, 2005, noted that guardrails would be required. Paul Carideo further noted that the Road Agent was of the same opinion. Don Duhaime asked when the guardrail would be installed. Paul Carideo replied that the guardrail would be installed when the work on the slope in that area was completed. Don Duhaime noted that people were living in the house on that lot already and the proposed road had been cut months prior. He thought that as a matter of safety the guardrails suggested by
Dufresne-Henry, Inc., should be installed sooner. Neil Smith replied that would not be a problem, however, it needed to be determined whether a stone wall with plantings or a guardrail should be installed. The Chairman asked who would make the final determination. Paul Carideo thought that Amy Alexander would make the appropriate determination and she had noted her concern that roots from trees would undermine the driveway and retaining wall over time and, therefore, 85 feet of guardrail was recommended. Paul Carideo further noted that the property owners could decide whether or not some kind of fencing should be installed to provide a screen.
Paul Carideo stated that comment #11 regarded an existing ledge area that would need to be reworked as it had been done for a driveway and not accurately for the road base. He added that the appropriate Town inspections would be applied at the time of this construction.
Paul Carideo continued with comment #13 which dealt with the end of the proposed roadway being in a temporary cul-de-sac easement. He explained that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., asked if this cul-de-sac was considered a turn-around. Paul Carideo noted that the entire cul-de-sac was shown on the plan and was shown to offer a turn-around. He reiterated that the cul-de-sac was in a temporary easement for future expansion.
Paul Carideo stated that comment #14 required a guardrail at the culvert located at station 12+75 between proposed Lot #’s 37, 34 and 36. Paul Carideo noted that the applicant did not think that a guardrail was warranted at this station because an existing slope would run down towards that culvert at a close proximity to the road at 3:1 sloping, however, they would add a note to the plan stating that this would be done at the discretion of the Road Agent.
Paul Carideo reviewed comment #19 which stated that underground utilities were not shown on the plan. He noted that the revised plans showed these utilities. He added that comment #22 noted that the utilities went out of the ditchline and off the edge of the pavement which was adjusted and reviewed with Amy Alexander who said it was acceptable.
Paul Carideo stated that comment #21 noted a driveway detail with a 25 foot platform rather than a 20 foot platform which was revised on sheet #22. Lastly, he noted that a stockpile of material in the road and on Lot #20 would require a silt fence around it to protect wetlands. Paul Carideo added that this was illustrated on the plan sets and would be carried out. He noted that a typographical error input on the drainage calculation was corrected and had not significantly changed the results of the drainage study for the site with no increased runoff predicted.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator and the Planning Assistant if they had any comments and they did not. He then asked the Board if they had any questions. James Nordstrom asked what issues were outstanding at this point regarding Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s review. Paul Carideo replied that there were two items on their most recent comment letter which involved the placement of informational signs on the proposed road that notified of stopping ahead and curves in the road. He added that he was unsure how the Town dealt with the installation of such signs, however, the applicant would do whatever was required. Paul Carideo noted that two waivers had been requested, one for the proposed road’s length and the other for Section IX-B,2,F requiring a maximum -3% grade off a roadway.
He added that one final item was to include a note on the plan or to show on the plan itself that a guardrail would be placed near the previously mentioned culvert. James Nordstrom wished to review comment #3 by Amy Alexander, Dufresne, Henry, Inc.: “Although we do not recommend the design with the grades and horizontal curves as proposed it their understanding that pre-plan ledge removal and the elevation of the houses currently being constructed is the rationale behind the request for the waiver…” He asked if this was the applicants’ rationale. Paul Carideo noted that at that point even if the road went to the negative 3% grade off the edge of the pavement and then turned upward there would still be issues with Lot #20 because they had already gone into the slope easement area as far as they could. Because of this, he explained that they proposed to steepen the slope which would expose some vertical ledge, and that Amy
Alexander had no issue with that proposal. Paul Carideo noted that this was the access point that had been left to the subdivision and not the applicant’s first choice but what they had to deal with based on what the State and Town would allow. He noted that the grade at the corner of the road was revised from 10% to 8.5% for safety after meeting with Amy Alexander. James Nordstrom clarified that the existing house on Lot #20 was the issue. Paul Carideo agreed and noted that while the proposed driveways for other nearby lots could be rerouted to meet the Town’s requirements for the roadway, the applicant was locked into the proposed road location in order to painstakingly avoid impact to some small isolated wetland pockets.
The Chairman asked how it would be feasible to build the future connector road to Lot #12/96 when it had already been a challenge to get the Wetland Board’s and Conservation Commission’s approvals for the currently proposed road. Paul Carideo noted that the proposed road would enter at a break point in the wetlands which the Wetlands Board had no issue with. He added that this point was raised with the Conservation Commission but they had offered no input on the subject. The Chairman stated that it appeared by the plan that the formerly proposed Lot #12/93-34 was now the proposed road bed. Paul Carideo replied that was correct.
Bob Furey asked if a retaining wall had been considered by Lot #12/93-20. Paul Carideo replied that a 1.5:1 slope, frequently used in development, was proposed with rock material. He noted that this would not be considered a vertical wall, instead, the slope was necessary because the driveway of Lot #20 created a tight area.
The Chairman asked John Riendeau, Road Agent, who was present in the audience, if he had any questions regarding the plan. John Riendeau replied that he had met with Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., regarding this plan and did not foresee any problems. He added that regarding the placement of guardrails over the culvert on the site, it was his experience that care must be taken during construction as underground utilities could be pushed out and away from the edge of the pavement and into the path of the guardrail installation which was a challenge being faced by the Indian Falls developers. Mitch Larochelle commented that this would be their case as well because the utilities were planned to go along that side of the proposed road. John Riendeau noted that Amy Alexander did not like
utilities under the edge of the pavement, however, in this case they may need to be moved near the edge in order to install the guardrails. He noted that he had no issue regarding the applicant’s request for a -2% grade away from the roadway since they had made the hill into the intersection of Carriage Road and the proposed Susan Road less steep.
The Coordinator asked Paul Carideo to explain the Erosion Control Plan to the Board. Paul Carideo noted that an Erosion Control Plan was done and he thought it was the first one done for the Town. He noted that critical areas on the site were indicated on page #19 of the plan set by hatch marks and were areas that were 75 feet from wetlands with slopes greater than 15%. He added that the construction entrance at the beginning of the proposed road would have drop inlet basins and a culvert that would service two swales with the last 100 feet being permanent grass line swales. Paul Carideo noted that permanent rip rap would lead into those swales from an 8.5% road grade and temporary hay bale barriers would be in place at the drop inlets until everything was stabilized. He added that a
temporary crushed material stock pile would be surrounded by silt fencing in addition to the temporary loam stock pile on Lot #12/93-37. Paul Carideo noted that the grassline swales would run along both sides of the proposed road with temporary stone check dams into rip rap aprons which would cause a slow feed to the wetlands on both sides. He added that sheet #20 of the plan set gave further details of Town and Federal requirements for erosion control which was why the Town’s design standards were included. Paul Carideo stated that the type of seeding to be used for the proposed swales and a construction schedule were also included. He noted that this construction schedule would be dependent on the weather as the project progressed. Paul Carideo further noted that inspection schedules were included in the Town notes section and EPA general permit notes stated that the site would be checked every seven days or within 24 hours of a minimum half
inch rainfall. He then stated that Sheet #21, a three sheet set, gave the sizings for rip rap, and details for aprons for culverts, swales, silt fencing and check dams. Paul Carideo noted that a similar section was included in the drainage report.
The Chairman asked if the wooden guardrails noted on the plan were still proposed. Paul Carideo replied that the wooden guardrails had been added to the plan for the homeowner of Lot #12/93-20, prior to the receipt of Dufresne-Henry-Inc.’s, letter dated April 23, 2005, and the correct detail for any regular roadside guardrail could be added if the Board preferred. The Chairman stated that he did not want anyone to think that wooden guardrails were acceptable for the roadway. John Riendeau concurred. Paul Carideo stated that this item would be corrected on the plan.
Bob Furey stated that he liked the detail on sheet #19 of the plan regarding the grassline swales and suggested that a note should be added that where it was not specified on the plan that rip rap ditches would be installed these grassline swales would be used. Paul Carideo replied that he could clarify the labels for the different ditches on the plan. Bob Furey then suggested that there should be a note on the plan stating that the contractor for the project should reference other detail sheets within the plan, especially the construction detail sheets.
The Chairman asked if the formal waiver request for the proposed road length had been submitted. The Coordinator replied that it had. The Chairman then asked if the CUP had been reviewed and the Coordinator replied that it had not. The Chairman asked the Coordinator for a copy of the CUP which she provided. The Chairman then read the CUP criteria and answers aloud:
a. The proposed construction is essential to the productive use of land not within the Wetlands Conservation District.
The proposed roadway is necessary to develop upland areas for single family homes.
b. Design and construction methods will be such as to minimize detrimental impact upon the wetland and will include restoration of the site as nearly as possible to its original grade and condition.
The proposed roadways have been designed in areas previously used as logging roads. All impacts proposed avoid high valued wetlands. The design and construction method used follow best management practices.
c. No alternative route which does not cross a wetland or has less detrimental impact on the wetland is feasible.
Do (sic) to the land configuration and many isolated wetland pockets the proposed layout has been designed to avoid major wetlands and/or cross at the narrowest spot.
d. Economic advantage alone is not reason for the proposed construction.
The proposed construction is necessary in order to provide a road network with abutting parcels providing other means of egress.
The Chairman asked the Board if they had any concerns with the answers to the questions. There being none the Chairman stated that the criteria had been met.
Paul Carideo noted that the steep slopes were shaded in purple on the plan. The Chairman then asked if there were any proposed driveways entering the lot from an 8% grade in the roadway. Paul Carideo replied there were not. He noted that one area on the plan depicted an 8.5% grade in the proposed roadway which would be reduced to 8% once a vertical curve was introduced.
The Chairman assumed that the results of the Fiscal Impact Study were positive as was the case with most subdivision applications that came before the Board. The Coordinator replied that was correct. The Chairman then asked the Board if they had any issues with the Traffic or Environmental Impact Studies and they did not. Bob Furey thought that the applicant should reference the information regarding the reconstruction of the portion of Carriage Road on sheet #13 to the Erosion Control Plan. Paul Carideo replied that this could be done.
The Chairman stated that $760.00 was estimated to be the applicant’s fair share contribution toward the Bedford Road culvert replacement project. He noted that at a previous meeting the applicant had asked for a waiver to this contribution, however, the Board decided that the contribution should be applied. The Chairman then asked if a note had been added to the plan stating that no further subdivision could occur until a second means of access or egress was established. Paul Carideo replied that this note was not yet added to the plan but he would do so and use the same language for the note as was on the Indian Falls subdivision plan. The Chairman asked if the temporary cul-de-sac easement and slope and drainage easement deeds had been received. The
Coordinator replied they had not, however, the submittals could be made a condition of approval.
The Chairman asked if the Board had acted on the waiver for the proposed road length. Neil Smith replied that they had made a verbal request for this waiver at a prior meeting and had since submitted a written follow up request. The Chairman asked what form of security the applicant would choose for the bond. Neil Smith replied that they would choose cash.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Lot Line Adjustment and Subdivision Plan, Olde Colony at New Boston, Land of Harvey Dupuis Family Trust, Tax Map 12 Lots 93 & 93-22, Carriage Road, for the subdivision of six lots, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,
including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F, 3.
4. Receipt of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.'s approval of the road plans and profile
5. Submission of a Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and Dufresne-Henry, Inc., if necessary.
6. Submission of the language of the form of the security for review and approval by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant. (If necessary).
7. Submission of the security, in the amount of $751,878 and in the form of cash bond, for the construction of Susan Road as shown on the approved plans and profiles.
8. Submission of the estimated construction inspection fees regarding the construction of Susan Road, in the amount of $24,000. A mandatory pre-construction meeting is required to be held with the developer/agent, road contractor, Town's Road Agent, and representatives of the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen, as well as the Town's consulting engineer, prior to the start of the road construction project.
9. Approval of the language of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions regarding the installation of sprinkler systems in each house in the subdivision and deed language that would incorporate that requirement, by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
10. Submission of executed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions regarding the installation of sprinkler systems. The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
11. Approval of the language of the slope and drainage easements by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
12. Approval of the language of the road deed by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
13. Approval of the language of the temporary cul-de-sac easement by Town Counsel, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
14. Execution of a Subdivision Agreement regarding the conditions subsequent.
15. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD (if necessary).
16. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be July 30, 2005, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT
1. Sprinkler systems shall be installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved subdivision, in accordance with Chapter NB-5.0 of the Town of New Boston Building Code before the occupancy of any dwelling in the approved subdivision.
2. Susan Road is to be constructed in accordance with the Application for Inspection and in accordance with the approved plans and profiles. After the base (binder) course of pavement is approved by the Road Agent/town's engineer, the developer will allow the road to set over one winter, during which time the developer will be liable for the road, including, but not limited to, winter maintenance thereof. The wearing (finish) course of pavement shall be applied no later than one (1) year
from the date of application of the binder course. The Application for Inspection must be turned into the Planning Department after the road is 100% complete, in order to initiate final inspection and acceptance of the road, and the release of the security for same after a compliance inspection and hearing is held.
3. Driveway locations shall be approved at sub-grade and driveways shall be installed through binder to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town engineer and in conformance with the Application for Inspection and approved driveway permits.
4. Per Subdivision Regulations Section V-S, 1, J), As-Built plans showing the final construction details, in the form of three paper print copies and one electronic file, certified by the applicant's engineer that the layout of the line and grade of all public improvements is in accordance with the approved construction plans of the subdivision, shall be submitted for review by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy within the subdivision.
5. Digital plat data shall be submitted per Subdivision Regulations Section IV-F,3 (if any changes have taken place since the recording of the mylar).
6. Submission of executed Deeds of Easement to the Town of New Boston for any slope and/or drainage easement areas identified on the plans. The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
7. Submission of executed Warranty Deed for Susan Road. The cost of recording at the HCRD shall be borne by the applicant.
8. Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set, and the appropriate fee for recording same with the HCRD. (If necessary
9. The applicant shall install road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) to the satisfaction of the Road Agent.
10. Driveway permits must be approved for completed acceptable installation by the Road Agent and Planning Board prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy (CO's) for the related lots.
11. Completion of the off-site road improvements for Carriage Road in accordance with the approved plans.
12. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until the sprinkler systems are installed, inspected, tested and approved by the New Boston Board of Fire Wards or their designee, in accordance with Chapter NB-5.0 of the Town of New Boston Building Code, and the driveways are installed and approved by the Road Agent and the Planning Board, and the road is installed through binder pavement, and the road identification sign(s) and stop sign(s) are installed to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town's engineer, and guard rails are installed to the satisfaction of the Road Agent/town's engineer (if necessary), and the As-Built plans have been reviewed and approved by the town's
engineer.
13. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application and/or the recording of documents with the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions subsequent shall be July 30, 2006, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing to be held on the application. Prior to the acceptance of the completed road by the Town, an acceptable two year maintenance bond must be submitted by the applicant for the road in the amount of 10% of the performance bond value.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the Conditional Use Permit application as complete, and to grant the Conditional Use Permit and approve the plans of Harvey Dupuis Family Trust, to effect two (2) wetland crossings at approximate sta. 6+00 and 8+50 on property on Carriage Road, known as Tax Map/Lot #12/93, as the four conditions for granting the Permit have been found to exist, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
Submission of the financial security for the wetland crossing installation as part of the total amount of the bond as noted in Condition Precedent # 7 in the Board's motion to approve the subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #12/93 & 12/93-22.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be July 30, 2005, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should the conditions to approval not be fulfilled by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:
1. Completion of the site improvements as related to the two (2) wetland crossings, as shown on the approved construction design plan.
2. The financial security shall not be released until the site has been inspected upon notification to the Planning Department by the applicants that the project has been completed, and a compliance hearing is held and confirms that the project has been satisfactorily completed by no later than July 30, 2006.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Road Entry Permit Application #05-023, Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/93 & 12/93-22, for Susan Road, with the Standard Planning Board
Requirements: the new road shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the road; the new road intersection with Carriage Road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the new road shall intersect with Carriage Road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the waiver request in the letter by Paul Carideo, PE, dated May 9, 2005, to reduce the road entry grade from -3% to -2%. Bob Furey seconded the motion.
The Chairman noted that Road Agent and Town Engineer agreed that altering the road grade to -2% from the centerline would not alter the safety factor of the road or conflict with the objective of its design.
The motion PASSED unanimously.
WILLARD, JONATHAN & JESSICA Adjourned from 5/10/05
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Private School
Location: 20 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #18/20
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants, Jonathan and Jessica Willard. Abutters present were Burt and Wilene Knight. Interested parties in attendance were Colleen Jorczak, Amy Rheault-Heafield, Donna Gibbons and Nancy Biederman.
Jonathan Willard stated that the application process had been an intimidating experience and he wished to thank the Board for the guidance they had provided thus far. He added that an outstanding item raised at the last meeting concerned the provision of a signed agreement by the Knights and the Willards regarding stipulations for fencing between the two properties. Jonathan
Willard then submitted a copy of this signed agreement to the Board along with an additional letter which addressed several other items. He stated that the first item called for a note to be added to the plan that stated the preschool traffic would not interfere with the existing traffic generated by the Central School and that the applicants would work with Rick Mathews, Principal, to assure his satisfaction with the traffic issue. Jonathan Willard added that the second item involved the requirement for a State Driveway Permit from the DOT which he noted was approved and faxed to him that morning. He further noted a third item to be the requirement for a Septic Permit from DES for the site. Jonathan Willard explained that they were trying to minimize negative impact to the environment by proposing compost toilets
for the proposed preschool. He noted that both the facilities for the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests and the Squam Lake Science Center had separate septic systems approved for their sites and waivers granted that eliminated the requirement for installing new systems, therefore, the septic permit process was not needed. Jonathan Willard likened his own situation to these scenarios although an existing septic system was on site that serviced the two residences in the home. He added that because the septic permit process would be time consuming, costly and ultimately unproductive due to the fact that the preschool would not be utilizing such a system, he requested a waiver for the Septic Permit. The Coordinator stated that the Board could discuss a waiver to the receipt of a Septic Permit as a condition of approval, but noted that the permit itself was a State requirement because a septic design would need to be submitted as proof that a
new system was feasible even if the need for it never came to pass. Douglas Hill asked if the change of use triggered the septic permit requirement on the applicant’s part as the site was formerly classified as commercial usage. The Coordinator replied that the State needed to be assured that the usage required could be handled by the present septic system. Douglas Hill asked if a formula charted usages on septic systems. The Coordinator replied that was the case. The Chairman thought that the application might be approved pending the State’s approval of a conventional septic design that could be installed if the current system were to fail. He noted that the State would want this assurance. The Coordinator explained that this option was a question for the Board as they historically did not approve applications until the Septic Permit was obtained. Jonathan Willard noted that their scenario was an uncommon one at the State
level and they believed the time involved to secure the septic permit would be lengthy. He noted that it took the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forestry from the point of their plan design to the opening of the establishment to secure their septic permit. Douglas Hill asked if the waiver requested for the plan was for the septic installation. Jonathan Willard replied that the waiver was for a septic permit to install a new septic system which in this case could be interpreted as a waiver to do nothing. Don Duhaime noted that although the proposed compost toilets for the preschool site would not put any load on the existing septic system other water usage such as sinks would be involved. Jonathan Willard replied that the proposed preschool
would have one sink.
The Chairman asked the condition of the current septic system on the site. Jonathan Willard replied that it had passed inspection. The Chairman asked if Jonathan Willard knew the size of this septic system. Jonathan Willard replied that he did not as it was installed before septic permits were required and there was no design on file with the State. James Nordstrom noted that the septic system would have to have been installed before 1972 which was the date that the requirement for septic permits was initiated. He added that New Hampshire State Law (RSA 485) dealt with water and waste water pollution with a subset that clearly stated that prior to the expansion of an existing structure the owner must apply to NH DES for approval of the septic system. James Nordstrom further added that
the New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules, We1000, also referenced RSA 485, stating that an owner could not remodel or expand a site without prior approval of the existing septic system due to potentials for increased loading. He noted that DES had accepted expansions with previously approved existing septic systems in the past provided that a certified evaluation from an engineer was submitted that stated the proposed usage would not impact loads on the site. James Nordstrom further noted that this happened frequently in other towns that in turn accepted what was accepted by the DES. He noted that in the applicant’s case a previously approved septic design was not available, therefore, a waiver by DES was not possible. James Nordstrom explained that this issue involved State law and not local requirements, therefore, if the Planning Board granted their own waiver they would be acting contrary to State statute. The Chairman clarified that
this issue was out of the Board’s jurisdiction and that either certification from the State or a State waiver to the septic permit was required. Jonathan Willard asked if the Board would accept the same certification that the State would require, i.e., certification by a State engineer which would eliminate the need to request a waiver. James Nordstrom replied that the one flaw in the logic he presented for that option was that a septic design be on file which was not the case for the applicant. He assumed the State would not contemplate this issue without such information. The Chairman clarified that the Planning Board would require that the site was built to State septic certification. Don Duhaime asked if the sellers of the property purchased by the Willards had a copy of the existing septic design for the site. Jonathan Willard replied that the septic system was installed before the previous owners purchased the property in 1996 and
they had no designs in their possession. Bob Furey asked if the State had any such records on file for the site’s existing septic system. Jonathan Willard replied they did not. James Nordstrom stated that if the applicant pursued septic approval by the State, given the usage proposed, a Non-Transient Water Supply Approval would also be required. He added that the New Boston Tavern (formerly the Molly Stark Tavern) had such a common water supply approval and their septic load included loads generated by Little People’s Depot. James Nordstrom explained that water supply approval would depend on enrollment figures for the preschool and such applicants would need water supply approval before DES septic approvals could be obtained. He added that the enrollment figures were usually based on 25 children or more enrolled for at least six months of the year. Jonathan Willard asked if water supply approval would require obtaining an easement
such as the example of a well easement that was needed by Rising Generation Daycare on NH Route 114. James Nordstrom replied that easement was for the physical placement of the Route 114 daycare’s proposed well whereas the Willard’s were dealing with septic systems loads. He read from the requirements for non-transient water supply approval by NH DES. Jonathan Willard stated that the enrollment figures for the proposed preschool were under 25 students. Jessica Willard clarified that the maximum enrollment per day was 20 children. James Nordstrom stated that given that information the water supply approval should not be needed.
Douglas Hill asked if the applicants had spoken with septic designers regarding their site. Jonathan Willard replied they had. Jessica Willard noted that the problem involved a lack of precedent involving the introduction of alternative waste treatment systems for site plans and their resulting requirement to go through the State’s septic approval process anyway. The Chairman asked what the capacity was for the site’s existing septic system. Jonathan Willard replied that he did not know as there was no septic design on file and he feared that they would have to go through a septic design process to satisfy various requirements even though a new septic system would most likely not be needed for this project. He added that because the existing house on the site was 200 years old
only routine inspections could provide information that the septic was functioning properly for its design. James Nordstrom noted that details of the existing septic design should have been provided to the Willards at the time they purchased the property.
The Chairman stated that the applicants could approach this issue by first determining the size of the existing septic tank in gallons, the size of the leach field and its capacity and what loads would be placed on a new system if the existing system were ever to be replaced. He added that information regarding square footage available for a new system should also be noted. Don Duhaime asked if test pits were dug on the site during the presale inspection. Jonathan Willard replied that they were not and that, instead, a six foot rod was plunged into the ground at an appropriate depth to check for leach bed failure.
The Chairman summarized that because State law required septic permits for sites involved with a change of use the Board could not grant a waiver for the Septic Permit.
Travis Daniels MOVED to adjourn the application of Jonathan and Jessica Willard, NRSPR, Private School, Location: 20 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #18/20, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to June 14, 2005, at 8:30 p.m. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
BOLTON, CHRISTOPHER (OWNER) Adjourned from 5/10/05
LAMBERT, WILL (APPLICANT)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Landscaping Material Supply Business
Location: Hemlock Drive & NH Route 114 a/k/a North Mast Road
Tax Map/Lot #3/52-26
Commercial “COM” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Mike Dahlberg, LLS, who represented the applicant. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that minor revisions had been made to the plan after the site
walk was held with members of the Board. He noted the light green shaded areas on the plan as representing trees and vegetation that would be cleared to offer better sight distance from the site onto the roadway. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, also noted the area of slope on the site and the shelf that was created as a result, and noted the relocated loam pile. He added that the outer berm on the site would be addressed no later than 12 months after the application’s approval and the berms preceding that one would be dismantled no later than 60 days after approval. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted the area on the plan labeled for proposed rental equipment storage which could be considered an accessory use to the proposed landscape supply business. He further noted that if the applicant proposed equipment sales
rather than rentals a special exception would be required by the ZBA. The Coordinator added that the Building Inspector had stated that day that rental equipment could be considered an accessory use of the landscaping supply business. James Nordstrom clarified than because Dennis Sarette, Building Inspector, was also the Zoning Administrator, his opinion on this scenario could be considered appropriate.
Bob Furey asked for an explanation of the one year stipulation for addressing a berm on the site. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, explained that before the proposed berm could be constructed the one that ran from the western edge of the property to an existing stone pile along with a secondary berm converging on the proposed display area would need to be removed as soon as possible. The Chairman clarified that the existing piles of stone material currently served as berms and as they were dismantled a permanent berm would be left in place. Bob Furey replied that he had no issue with that proposal. The Chairman asked if any trees had been cleared towards the front of the site. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, said that had occurred although he hadn’t viewed it personally. He noted that the area from the
toe of the existing slope on the site to the edge of the property from which the trees had been cleared should be adequate for sight distance onto the roadway.
Douglas Hill asked how many pieces of rental equipment the applicant proposed on the site. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, assumed the applicant would propose what his budget allowed and noted that he had advised the applicant to include this proposal on the plan now rather than re-approach the Board to amend the plan in the future.
The Chairman asked there were any outstanding issues on the plan. The Coordinator replied there were not. The Chairman noted that the Driveway Permit issue had been resolved. The Coordinator mentioned that an outstanding fee had been billed but could be made a condition of the approval. The Chairman asked if any Board members had comments regarding the site walk that was held. James Nordstrom stated that the site looked much better than it did one year ago.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Christopher Bolton & Will Lambert, NRSPR, Landscaping Material Business, Location: Hemlock Drive & NH Route 114 a/k/a North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/52-26, Commercial “COM” District,
as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill asked if specific sight distance guidelines were required for commercial sites. James Nordstrom replied that he thought AASHTO standards offered suggestions for sight distance but was not aware of any specific distance requirements for the Town. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that a compliance site walk would be required before the Permit to Operate could be issued at which time adequate sight distance could be assured.
James Nordstrom stated that landscape buffers were mentioned at the time of the site walk. He asked if there would be any improvements within 15 feet of the site’s boundary line other than clearing and slope stabilization. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the edge of the storage bins were ten feet back from the 15 foot buffers. James Nordstrom clarified that part of these buffers would be comprised of stone for purposes of stabilization. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that was correct and that the stone material would control vegetation which had been a maintenance issue for the previous owner of the site.
James Nordstrom asked if the Road Agent had viewed and approved the Driveway Permit Application for the upper plateau area on the site. The Coordinator replied that he had not. The Chairman stated that he did not foresee any issues with that driveway permit. Douglas Hill agreed and added that there would be no customers accessing that driveway. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that was correct. James Nordstrom noted that the plan indicated that the driveway to the upper level of the site was not intended as the primary entrance. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that this area was labeled on the plan for proposed vehicle storage and primary use of J&W Landscaping. The Chairman noted that the Driveway Permit Application for this location also noted it to be a secondary access. James
Nordstrom thought it unlikely that a customer would park on the upper level and walk down the steep grade on the property to access materials for purchase.
James Nordstrom asked if application fees were outstanding. The Coordinator stated they were $211.00. James Nordstrom asked if the Board had made the payment of outstanding application fees a condition of approval in the past. The Coordinator replied that they had in the case of Site Plans but not ordinarily for subdivisions.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the site plan for Christopher Bolton (owner) and Will Lambert (applicant), to operate and maintain a landscaping material supply business, Tax Map/Lot #3/52-26, Hemlock drive and NH Route 114 a/k/a North Mast Road, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of three (3) copies of the revised site plan that include all
checklist corrections, waivers and any agreed-upon conditions from this hearing;
2. Submission of Site Plan application fees.
3. Execution of a Site Review Agreement regarding the condition(s) subsequent;
The deadline for complying with the condition(s) precedent shall be July 1, 2005, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, an administrative NOTICE OF DENIAL shall be issued without further action of the Board being required.
CONDITION(S) SUBSEQUENT:
1. All of the site improvements are to be completed per the approved site plan;
2. The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing and the opening of the business on the site;
3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted prior to the compliance hearing;
4. A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of Permit to Operate or Certificate of Occupancy, or both. The site cannot be used or occupied for the business until the compliance hearing has been held, and an affirmative finding made by the Planning Board.
The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be September 1, 2005, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing on same as described in item 4 above. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
KAREN M. MORIN REVOCABLE TRUST Adjourned from 4/12/05
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/5 Lots
Location: Greenfield Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/74
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Mike Dahlberg, LLS, Todd, Connors, PE, and the applicant, Paul Morin. Also present was an abutter, Susan Woodward.
Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that Todd Connors, PE, would be addressing the Board regarding the Town Engineer’s plan review comments which involved minor revisions. He added that there were no issues raised about the drainage report. Todd Connors, PE, then submitted a check to the Coordinator for an outstanding fee. He noted that the Town Engineer’s review of the plan flagged minor corrections. Todd Connors, PE, stated that it was determined that there was enough room in the ditchlines along Greenfield Road to drop two 12 inch culverts in place of the existing culvert noted on the plan. He added that the erosion controls measures would include silt fencing on both sides of Greenfield Road and at the toe of an existing slope due to the wash outs that
had been ongoing. Todd Connors, PE, noted that a break in the stone wall bordering the road would allow water to run through which would then be slowed by proposed hay bales or stone check dams before dispersing to the existing pond on the site.
Todd Connors, PE, stated that the applicant preferred not to have guardrails installed on Greenfield Road and instead alter the existing slopes to 4:1 so that they would meet Town requirements. He noted that a softening of this slope was proposed by tapering the 8% grade to 6.5%. Todd Connors, PE, further noted that Amy Alexander of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had identified a significant fill slope close to the intersection of Greenfield Road and the proposed road the location was in the area of a stop controlled intersection or the outside of the curve and he did not think a guardrail was warranted there.
Todd Connors, PE, noted that other comments from the Town Engineer were clarification items that could be easily addressed. He referred to exhibits submitted to the Board tonight which detailed erosion control measures and the two 12 inch culvert replacements proposed for the one existing 12 inch culvert on Greenfield Road. Todd Connors, PE, noted that even though the proposed upgrades to Greenfield Road in that location would raise it one foot higher the double culvert was proposed because current observations during rain storms revealed that runoff was flowing under the culvert in the stone bedding. He noted that installing headwalls would alleviate that occurrence along with silt fencing, hay bales and stone check dams.
James Nordstrom asked about the access to proposed Tax Map/Lot #7/74-3 and its grade issue. Todd Connors, PE, replied that Tax Map/Lot #7/74-3 was a proposed backlot and its grade in question pitched away from the roadway. He stated that the applicant would provide a grading plan for that driveway which would support that it could be constructed according to the stipulations of the Driveway Regulations without wetland impacts. The Chairman stated that this would be a required submission to the Board. James Nordstrom added that a plan grading or profile to assure that the requirements of the Driveway Regulations could be met would be acceptable.
Susan Woodward asked if the notation on the plan that noted removal of the existing 12 inch RCP concerned the existing culvert near the entrance to the proposed road. Todd Connors, PE, explained that during the proposed reconstruction of Greenfield Road the existing culvert in the low spot would be replaced and a culvert would be installed under the proposed road. He
noted that water discharges would be in close to the same locations as currently and the flow would be maintained while improving the conditions. Susan Woodward asked if this meant that the new culvert would be installed at an angle which she thought could result in the downhill runoff collecting in an existing long trench along Greenfield Road. She added that she also questioned whether the proposed silt fence near the existing stone wall on her property along with the proposed widening of Greenfield Road would result in runoff collecting on the pasture side of her property. Todd Connors, PE, explained that the proposed silt fencing was a temporary measure and was a black mesh fabric designed to let water through while holding back siltation. He added that once the embankments were reestablished with vegetation
the silt fencing would be removed. Todd Connors, PE, noted that the ditchlines would be maintained as Greenfield Road was raised and widened and although the resulting ditchlines would be smaller than what currently existed the new culverts would allow the runoff to flow better without as much detention in the ditchlines. He added that frost heaves had raised the existing culverts and resetting them would establish original grades. Todd Connors, PE, stated that the resulting slopes would encroach on the ditchlines, however, once the reconstruction was complete the runoff situation would not be any worse than what it was now. Susan Woodward stated that she was concerned that the resulting ditchlines would not be able to hold as much runoff as the current ones. The Chairman replied that the road upgrade was designed with the
protection of Greenfield Road as the main concern. He added that although the new ditchlines would be narrower the flow they carried would be better handled. Todd Connors, PE, further added that Greenfield Road would be widened and its grade raised with the fill slope encroaching into a ditchline that would have a large capacity. Susan Woodward asked if raising the grade of Greenfield Road could cause more runoff to collect in the ditchlines. Todd, Connors, PE, explained that the existing culvert was the issue and its replacement with two 12 inch culverts would move more water. The Chairman added that the new culverts would be at the correct level for the road.
Susan Woodward asked if there was any possibility that the road width could be changed from 20 feet of pavement to 18 or 19 feet with the excess width added to the road shoulders. The Chairman replied that the redesigned road width had already been reduced as far as was reasonable and was narrower than some Town roads. Susan Woodward stated that she wished the width could be lessened as she believed it would offer more protection to pedestrians and the existing daylilies that banked the roadside. The Chairman noted that a width narrower than what was proposed could present a safety issue. James Nordstrom added that the Road Agent and Town Engineers recommendations were pivotal to what width was acceptable. The Coordinator noted that the Fire Department had suggested
a greater width of 22 feet. James Nordstrom stated that the current width proposed was a result of agreement between the Road Agent and Road Committee and reducing the width would require their input again. The Chairman noted that a lesser width would be against the recommendations of the aforementioned entities.
Bob Furey asked if the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan had been updated to incorporate the impacts to Greenfield Road. Todd Connors, PE, replied that this was shown on the exhibit presented to the Board tonight and would be added to the final plan. The Chairman asked if any steep slopes would be impacted by the plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied they would not.
The Chairman stated that the Selectmen had approved Daylily Lane as the proposed road’s name. He asked if the improvements to Greenfield Road were to be done before the proposed road construction or simultaneously. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the projects would occur simultaneously.
The Chairman then read the CUP criteria and stated that the applicant appeared to meet all criteria. James Nordstrom asked if the proposed road could be pushed south so that a wetland crossing was avoided while still meeting Town standards. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied it could not because by doing so the tangents between reverse curves would be too tight for the speed of the road and would not meet the Town’s geometric standards.
James Nordstrom asked if the applicant’s bond estimate had been reviewed. The Coordinator replied that it had not. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that he was still waiting to hear from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., regarding this item but that his client was willing to post the bond. James Nordstrom noted that in the past the Board and applicants were in agreement that it was wiser to wait for bond estimate details rather than insert an open ended figure in the conditions of the approval. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that he understood that such a situation could expose
the applicant to the risk of being liable for a bond estimate that came in too high. James Nordstrom stated that was the case. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, thanked the Board for this advice and requested that a subsequent hearing be scheduled as soon as the Board’s agenda allowed. He noted that in the interim there were some minor comments that needed to be addressed with Dufresne-Henry, Inc.
The Chairman stated that the Board would need to extend the deadline date for action on the application and asked the applicant if he was agreeable to June 28, 2005, which was the next available meeting date. Paul Morin asked if the hearing could be adjourned sooner to a work session due to the fact that the Town Engineer’s review comments were received from them one week after they were completed, hence, administrative issues were delaying the process. The Coordinator explained that the Planning Board only held meetings twice a month and the June 14, 2005, agenda was already full. The Chairman added that the applicant had the choice of accepting an open ended bond estimate in the approval of his application tonight or could accept the adjournment date mentioned. Paul Morin replied that June 28, 2005, was acceptable.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Karen M. Morin Revocable Trust, Major Subdivision, 5 Lots, Location: Greenfield Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/74, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to June 28, 2005. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Susan Woodward asked if all conditions specified in previous meetings regarding this plan would be stipulated if the application was approved at the next scheduled hearing, such as replanting the existing daylilies along Greenfield Road if needed. The Chairman replied that they would.
At 9:20 p.m. the Planning Board took a 15 minute break.
SUSANA LECLAIR REVOCABLE TRUST Adjourned from 4/12/05
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/6 Lots
Location: Bedford Road
Tax Map/Lot #9/24
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Mike Dahlberg, LLS, who represented the applicant. Also present were abutters, Dick and Betsy Moody and their attorney, Jed Callen.
Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that after the site walk held with members of the Board the location of the proposed driveway for Lot #9/24-15 was revised on the plan to a point further up Baker Lane. He added that the Dredge and Fill Permit was recently approved by the State and that State Subdivision Approval had been in for some time. The Chairman asked if the
Board had acted on the waivers for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact studies. The Coordinator replied they had not. Douglas Hill asked for a copy of the plan which the Coordinator provided. He then asked for a description of the site. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the site was located 400 feet west of Wilson Hill Road and after the sharp turn on Bedford Road. The Chairman asked if any members of the Board had issues with the waivers requested for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact studies. James Nordstrom replied that he did not have a problem waiving the Fiscal Impact Study. He added that at a previous hearing it was noted that the Board intended that specific building locations would be noted on the plan due to the potential for environmental impacts given the proximity
of existing wetlands to access points and driveway locations on the site. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that he had shown building pockets on the submitted plan and that erosion control measures were detailed on sheet #3 of the plan set, however, specific house locations were not yet known. James Nordstrom stated that what the plan currently provided should suffice as areas were delineated. Douglas Hill asked Mike Dahlberg, LLS, to highlight the locations of the proposed driveways on the plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, did so, noting an existing driveway off Bedford Road and proposed driveways on Bedford Road, Baker Lane and Wilson Hill Road. The Chairman clarified that the waivers for the studies including the Environmental Impact Study had been granted previously based on the rationale that building pockets would be noted on the plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that given the rural nature of the site, he had expanded the building pockets on the lots to
allow for barns, paddocks, etc. Bob Furey asked Mike Dahlberg, LLS, to note the location of Lot #9/24-14 on the plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted its location.
Travis Daniels MOVED to accept the application of Susana LeClair Revocable Trust, Major Subdivision, 6 Lots, Location: Bedford Wilson Hill Roads and Baker Lane, Tax Map/Lot #9/24, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete.
Jed Callen, Esq., asked if he might speak to the completeness of the application. He explained that he was the attorney for Dick and Betsy Moody who were abutters to the east of the site. He explained that it was his understanding by reviewing the Subdivision Regulations that an application must be submitted with all items required for completeness no less than 15 days prior to its hearing before the Planning Board, in this case May 9, 2005, so that the public would have ample time to review such information before its acceptance. Jed Callen, Esq., added that it was his impression that the Board had not been in possession of the revisions requested at the prior hearing such as new driveway locations, building envelopes, 200 foot squares, etc. He noted that his clients
were not informed that a revised plan existed since the last meeting along with coinciding copies of the State Subdivision Approval, Erosion Control Plan and Wetlands Permits and if they were not at the
Planning Office before May 9, 2005, the application could not legally be considered complete this evening. The Coordinator stated that a completed application could only be determined as such by the Planning Board and she would have to look at the date stamps on submitted items for the plan. Jed Callen, Esq., asked the applicant what the submittal date was for the application. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that the application was submitted in February 2005. Jed Callen, Esq., asked when the updated plan including the requested revisions along with the State permits and Erosion Control Plan were submitted. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that these items were submitted on various dates and that it was his understanding that a two or three step hearing process ensued once an application was filed with the Planning Department.
The Chairman noted that the Board generally required submittals seven days prior to the next hearing with an applicant. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, added that he had received the Dredge and Fill Permit for the plan last week and hand delivered it to the Coordinator. The Coordinator stated that at the time of the Board’s first hearing of the application on April 12, 2005, the application fees were not submitted, a waiver had been requested to the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact studies, the Dredge and Fill Permit was not yet obtained as well as the deed language, but the covenants were in place. She explained that because of the latter mentioned outstanding items the hearing was adjourned to today’s date in order to
determine the application’s completeness. The Chairman clarified that required items for completeness of this application were received at the Planning Department as late as May 20, 2005. The Coordinator replied that was correct. Jed Callen, Esq., noted that in addition to the submittal procedures implemented by the Planning Board, Section IV,F of the Subdivision Regulations, noted what should be required for a completed application which included the items discussed tonight, State permits and in this case a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan per Section V-V of the Subdivision Regulations.
He added that his clients could not obtain copies of these items more recently than 15 days ago. The Coordinator stated that a hearing is scheduled 15 days from the initial submission of an application and once in process the Board required seven days leeway for submissions prior to the next scheduled hearing for that application. She added that if an item was received later than that it had been the Board’s practice to consider it towards the acceptance because it was pivotal to the progress of the application. James Nordstrom asked if the Board would be acting contrary to State statute to act on acceptance of the application tonight given the information presented and how this would affect the Board’s deadline for action. Jeff Callen, Esq., commented that the submission of the
application two months prior was legally irrelevant. He added that the State statute, RSA 676-4, 1B, and the Town’s Subdivision Regulations were consistent with each other and clearly stated that the Planning Board had no jurisdiction over an application until it was complete: “The Planning Board shall specify by regulation what constitutes a completed application sufficient to invoke jurisdiction to obtain approval. A completed application means that sufficient information is included or submitted to allow the Board to proceed with consideration and to make an informed decision. A completed application sufficient to invoke jurisdiction of the Board shall be submitted to and accepted by the Board only at a public meeting of the Board with notices provided.” He then read sub paragraph D: “The applicant shall file the application with the Board or its agent at least 15 days prior to the meeting at which the application will be
accepted.” He added that Section IV-F of the Subdivision Regulations, Completed Application said: “A completed application sufficient to invoke jurisdiction of the Board must include sufficient information to allow the Board to proceed with consideration and to make an informed decision. The following shall be required for an constitute a completed application”-and, he stated, listed such things as soil maps, erosion control, any and all local and State permits, including wetlands permits, Site Specific, etc. He added that Section IV-G stated: “A completed application shall be filed with the office of the Planning Department at least 15 days prior to a scheduled public meeting of the Board as provided in Section IV.” Jed Callen, Esq., stated that the Moodys were informed by the Planning Department on May 18, 2005, that no new information had been filed since
the February plan and that the applicant had also confirmed tonight that new items were submitted as late as
four days ago. He added that given this knowledge he did not see how the plan could be legally accepted as complete. Jed Callen, Esq., noted that he was willing to offer additional comments in an advisory capacity to the Board if they so wished. The Chairman asked James Nordstrom his thoughts on this issue. James Nordstrom replied that the State statute and the Town’s Subdivision Regulations were clear in their definitions of what constituted a completed application and when it could be accepted as such by the Board. The Chairman noted that the Board had been intolerant in the past regarding incomplete applications but had periods where they tried to ease the timing of submissions for plan items in order for the applications to progress steadily through the process. He added that the Board’s stricter practices concerning this issue may need to be reinstituted. The Coordinator agreed. Mike Dahlberg, LLS,
stated that according to his understanding of the RSA an application needed to be submitted 15 days prior to the initial hearing with the Board. He added that because the Subdivision Regulations stated what constituted a completed application he would like to request a waiver on the time frame regarding the submission of the Dredge and Fill Permit and the Erosion Control Plan that he would follow up in writing. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that because an abutter had not responded at the time the Dredge and Fill Permit Application was filed an appeal followed and the State exceeded their 75 day time frame. He added that he was also basing his waiver request on the submission procedures of the Board of which he was familiar. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that it was clear that the Moodys did not want to see this subdivision approved and he felt that the plan met the Regulations other than some timing issues. The
Chairman agreed but believed that Jed Callen, Esq., was correct regarding the 15 day submission timeline for applications. James Nordstrom agreed. The Chairman noted that if the Board accepted the application as complete tonight that would give Attorney Callen grounds to appeal which would further delay the application. He added that the Board did not have any major issues with the plan and wished to hear brief comments from the Moody’s regarding their concerns. Jed Callen, Esq., stated that his clients were concerned that the proposed location for the driveway of Lot #9/24-15 had been revised to a location closer to their property which afforded less sight distance on a blind corner. The Chairman replied that the original location for this proposed driveway would have involved the removal of trees during its construction and negative impacts to nearby wetlands. He added that
because the potential owner would be required to maintain this driveway off the existing Class V road the revised location was deemed a better area as it was not parallel to the wetlands. Jed Callen, Esq., assumed that Lot #9/24-15 must have a steep grade if the option to move the driveway over was not available. He added that based on the steep slopes of the site his clients opposed the granting of the waiver for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact studies. Jed Callen, Esq., further added that because these waiver were acted on before the application was accepted as complete he felt that it should be re-voted after the applications presumed acceptance at the next hearing. He noted that his clients had no objection to the waiver of the Traffic and Fiscal Impact studies but were in favor of an Environmental Impact Study being performed. Jed Callen, Esq., stated that his clients were also concerned about the revised driveway entrance location
for Lot #9/24-15 and the traffic and safety issues it presented. Dick Moody wished to state for the record that he was not opposed to the subdivision itself, rather, he was mainly opposed to the revised driveway location discussed as Baker Lane was a very scenic road with 200 year old maple trees that he felt would be threatened by the construction of the driveway in that area. The Chairman replied that more trees would have been affected if the driveway were to be constructed in its original location parallel to the wetlands while the revised location would call for the removal of one maple tree which appeared sickly. Dick Moody noted that the sickly tree which the Chairman referred to was a very old tree also. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that he had not seen any large trees at the revised location and would be agreeable to locate all the specimen trees of concern and note them on the plan. Dick Moody asked if a gap would need to be made in the
existing stone wall on the site to accommodate the entranceway for Lot #9/24-15’s proposed driveway. The Chairman thought that a gap already existed at that point in the wall’s upper corner. Dick Moody noted that the wall might have reduced in size over the years at that point, however, an actual gap did not exist. He added that there was not a lot of room given that proposed entranceway to swing around the wall. The Chairman explained that Lot #9/24-15’s driveway was proposed to enter through the wall at an angled approach. Dick Moody clarified that the cut that would be required in the existing stone wall for the driveway would impact the existing home nearby and that was his only objection regarding the plan. The Chairman stated that when the Board attended the site walk they determined that this was the best location for Lot #9/24-15’s proposed driveway as it would have
lesser impacts on the wetlands and no impacts to Baker Lane, the Moody property, the existing
stone wall or the old maple trees. He added that any stones taken down for the driveway’s construction would most likely be replaced by the owner of the new lot. Jed Callen, Esq., noted that his clients would most likely accept the offer to view the site with Mike Dahlberg, LLS. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that Lot #9/24-15 did not fall within the Steep Slopes District as its slopes ranged between 6 and 8%. He added that its driveway would most likely traverse the existing slope and that by avoiding the wetlands 300 feet of potential impacts were spared. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that he was agreeable to return to the site and locate the trees that concerned the Moodys for notation on the plan but had not offered to meet the Moodys on-site. The Chairman asked Jed Callen, Esq., if his clients’ concerns had been adequately addressed tonight. Jed Callen, Esq., replied that they had, although, they may have additional comments on
the new plan versus the one that was submitted in February 2005. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the revised plan had been submitted two weeks prior which had a typographical error and a missing acreage item, however, tonight’s plan was the same version as the one submitted.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion to accept the application as complete and the motion FAILED.
Travis Daniels MOVED to adjourn the application of Susana LeClair Revocable Trust, Major Subdivision, 6 Lots, Location: Bedford Wilson Hill Roads and Baker Lane, Tax Map/Lot #9/24, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to June 28, 2005, at 9:45 p.m. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 24, 2005
1. Discussion Re: Right Way Builders, Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 5/52.
Rick Martin, President of Right Way Builders, was in attendance and asked the Board if they would consider forwarding his plan so that it could be reviewed by the Town Engineer and Town Counsel even though it had not been procedurally accepted by the Board. He noted that all items except Site Specific had been submitted to the Board and included the road plan, drainage calculations, covenant language and information for the Conservation Commission. Rick Martin stated that he was making this request in the interest of time because on June 28, 2005, he was scheduled to present another minor subdivision application to the Board for a site that he wished to combine with the plan for Tax Map/Lot #’s 5/50 & 5/52. He explained that if his current plan was forwarded for
review now it would most likely be addressed in the same time frame as the items for the latter mentioned plan. The Coordinator clarified that the final application had been submitted to the Planning Department for the plan regarding Tax Map/Lot #’s 5/50 & 5/52 and Mr. Martin wished it to now be forwarded to the Town Engineer and Town Counsel prior to the Board’s June 28, 2005, meeting. The Chairman clarified that this plan had not yet been accepted as complete which meant that the Board did not have legal jurisdiction over it, therefore, he did not think that the plan should be forwarded for review. Christine Quirk
noted that the Town Engineer and Town Counsel may not be able to address certain question that might be raised during their review process because the Board had not ascertained the plan’s completeness. Rick Martin stated that he would accept whatever the Board’s discretion was regarding his request and noted that he made this request knowing that the legal review of the plan would take time and would most likely be forwarded on June 28, 2005, anyway. The Chairman noted that the Board would be risking liability for the review bills if the plan was forwarded prior to acceptance and Mr. Martin was unhappy with the results of the reviews. Rick Martin replied that he was only seeking an estimate for these bills in consideration of the fact that the submission of Site Specific was still outstanding on the plan but
should be completed by the June 28, 2005, meeting. The Chairman questioned the likelihood of Town Counsel reviewing the application’s documentation for the plan prior to June 28, 2005. Douglas Hill thought that Town Counsel’s review would occur sooner if the documents were forwarded now versus June 28, 2005. James Nordstrom stated that such requests were not uncommon, however, forwarding a plan for review prior to the Board’s acceptance of completeness was not something the Board had done in the past. The Chairman and Christine Quirk agreed. Bob Furey stated that he was in agreement regarding the timing of the Town Engineer review but undecided regarding Town Counsel’s review. Don Duhaime stated that he did not think the plans should be forwarded to the Town Engineer prior to it being accepted as complete by the Board but thought that it could be forwarded to Town Counsel in the interim. Travis Daniels agreed.
The Chairman noted that if the plan were forwarded to Town Counsel prior to being accepted as complete and the plan was altered at the next scheduled meeting with the Board, revised legal language could be required. Rick Martin replied that he did not think, given Town Counsel’s heavy schedule, that the legal documents for his plan would be reviewed before the next meeting with the Board even if they were forwarded ahead of time. The Chairman asked what the turn around time for plan review was for the Town Engineer. The Coordinator replied that she thought it was a couple of weeks. Rick Martin noted that if the plan were forwarded to the Town Engineer now it was likely that their estimate would be known in time for the next scheduled hearing. He added that he did not think Town Counsel would even get to their review before that time but at least his documents would be there sooner. James Nordstrom reiterated that it was not the Board’s policy to forward plans before the
application was accepted as complete. Christine Quirk and Don Duhaime agreed. The Chairman asked Rick Martin who was representing his plan. Rick Martin replied that Bob Todd and Earl Sandford were involved with his application.
Christine Quirk recused herself as her item was up next.
9. Discussion Re: Friendly Beaver Campground, Cochran Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/11.
The Chairman asked if the Coordinator had any new information to add to the discussion since the last time this item was before the Board. The Coordinator replied that she did not. Christine Quirk stated that the day after the last discussion was held with the Board she submitted the testimonial letter she had spoken of during that discussion to the Planning Department. She added that she had obtained several other testimonials since that time which she then submitted to the Board.
The Chairman wondered if the site plan for the prepared food counter at Dodge’s Store had similar issues when it came before the Planning Board. From the audience, Brandy Mitroff noted that Phil Consolini who currently held a position on the ZBA was a Planning Board member at the time of the Dodge Store site plan and had expressed concerns regarding that expanded use. The Board then read the testimonials submitted by Christine Quirk. Brandy Mitroff asked if she could provide a verbal testimonial to the Friendly Beaver Campground’s ongoing existence of a public food service. The Chairman replied that she could. Brandy Mitroff stated that she moved to the Town in 1972 and at that time it was a well known fact that the owner of the campground at that
time, Charlie Martin, ran a snack bar for campground patrons and the public. From the audience, George St. John stated that this snack bar was a very casual lunch counter that served breakfast and lunch with varied meal choices offered each day and not an extensive menu. He added that Lucy Dickerman was a cook there at that time and the snack bar was a well known gathering place for local patrons in the Town. The Chairman asked George St. John if the campground operated by his family was open for business during this same time period. George St. John replied that it was, however, it did not serve meals and catered to a different type of clientele that the Friendly Beaver Campground. He noted that the Friendly Beaver Campground’s snack bar was similar to a general store that serviced campers with necessary items.
Christine Quirk stated that she had found some old pictures of the Friendly Beaver Campground’s original recreation hall in which the old kitchen could be discerned. She added that the recreation hall in these pictures burned down in 1996 and she had pictures of the fire as proof. Christine Quirk noted that Frank Fillmore had stated that he frequented the original recreation hall along with other townspeople and was served food.
The Chairman felt that it had been established that food was served to the public for many years at the campground before Zoning regulations were in place. He asked members of the Board what they felt was the best way to handle this issue. Douglas Hill noted that the Planning Board meeting held in 1995 regarding the Site Review Agreement for the campground had determined that a Site Plan review would not be required as long as parking was adequate on the site. James Nordstrom asked when Zoning Regulations were established for the Town. The Coordinator replied that they were initially established in 1973 but finalized in 1977. James Nordstrom stated that the usage discussed appeared to exist prior to Zoning Regulations. The Chairman clarified that Charlie
Martin owned the campground from 1971 to 1979. Brandy Mitroff stated that she was a member of the Planning Board at the time that interim Zoning regulations were in place and she was also aware of Charlie Martin’s snack bar during that time. James Nordstrom noted that John Riendeau, Road Agent, had stated in a letter that he had been frequenting the campground snack bar since 1992. Bob Furey stated that he was convinced given the proof offered that the campground had been serving food to the public before Zoning was established. James Nordstrom agreed.
The Chairman asked how the Board should approve the usage procedurally since the current snack bar had evolved over time and was now more than it was in the 1970’s. Bob Furey asked if the Board should make a motion to approve the usage. The Chairman replied that he was unsure of what the Board would technically be approving. The Coordinator noted although the Board had established that the usage existed pre-zoning parameters were also needed regarding the hours of operation, size of the use, etc.
George St. John stated that the Board should recognize that the campground restaurant was not intended to be the economic background of the campground and its revenue would not exceed what was generated by the campground itself. The Chairman asked Barry Charrest, who cooked for the campground restaurant, what he envisioned for its parameters. Barry Charrest replied that he intended to serve breakfast and lunch. Bob Furey asked how many customers could be serviced at the restaurant at one time. Barry Charrest replied that the restaurant could seat 40 people. The Chairman asked if the parking area could accommodate restaurant patrons with existing campers. Christine Quirk replied that the campground had thirty parking spaces available which could handle
that combination. The Chairman asked what the hours of operation would be for the restaurant. Barry Charrest replied that because exterior lighting was existing he would like hours of 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. seven days a week. George St. John noted that if hours were extended beyond that time it could interfere with the quiet time hours already established for the campground.
Douglas Hill asked why Christine Quirk felt she needed to approach the Board regarding this issue initially. The Chairman explained that Christine Quirk, in light of Zoning considerations, wished to continue to open the campground restaurant to the public legitimately without the guise of offering a campground visitor pass in order for the public to skirt Zoning Regulations. Brandy Mitroff added that up to this point Christine Quirk could not advertise the restaurant and because she was also a Selectmen she was under increased scrutiny.
The Chairman stated that the Board needed to decide upon the wording for a motion to approve the usage. James Nordstrom stated that the issue for wording the motion involved State law where there had been modifications to the size and capacity of the restaurant over the years. Brandy Mitroff noted that when Charlie Martin owned the campground the original recreation building was capable of holding forty people although it was an unlikely occurrence at that time. Don Duhaime asked how many campers patronized the restaurant. Barry Charrest replied that it depended on the time of day but campers never filled the space to capacity. Don Duhaime asked if a scenario evolved where the restaurant was filled to capacity with patrons waiting if it would adversely affect
the campground business. Barry Charrest replied that nothing would be allowed to adversely affect the campground business.
The Chairman stated that the Board would be amending the campground’s Site Plan to incorporate the approval for the public to continue its patronage of the restaurant as had occurred in the past. The Coordinator clarified that a confirmation statement that the restaurant has and will continue to function should be attached to the Site Plan, rather than amend the Site Plan.
James Nordstrom MOVED to acknowledge the restaurant business of the Friendly
Beaver Campground as an accessory use to the campground and to recognize hours of
operation as Sunday to Saturday, 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m, operating since the early 1970’s
and open to the public. The Board determined that the usage existed prior to Zoning as a
pre-existing non-conforming use and that the current restaurant has to operate in the same fashion as it has in the past. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Christine Quirk reclaimed her seat on the Board.
1. Approval of the minutes of April 26, 2005, with or without changes. (Distributed at the
May 10, 2005, meeting.)
Travis Daniels MOVED to approve the minutes of April 26, 2005, as written. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for David L. Lyons and Susan R. Charest-Lyons,
Laurel Lane, Tax Map/Lot #12/106, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
3. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for David L. and Janet E. Nixon, Lyndeborough
Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/58, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
4. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Susan Martin, South Hill & McCollum
Roads, Tax Map/Lot #14/1, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
5. Endorsement of a Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Right Way Builders, Inc., and Howard
and Francis Towne, Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/52 and 52-1, by the Planning Board
Chairman and Secretary.
The Board postponed the endorsement of item #’s 2-5 to the end of the meeting.
6. A copy of a letter received May 17, 2005, from John S. Greenwood, Project Manager,
R.J. Moreau Communities, LLS, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: Extension of
Conditional Use Permit for Tax Map/Lot #6/41-45, was distributed for the Board’s
action.
The Coordinator stated that she did not feel that Mr. Greenwood’s extension date request to the end of May, 2005, was enough time for the completion of the wetland crossing for the above noted lot. Douglas Hill asked what the original deadline date was. The Planning Assistant replied that it was May, 1, 2005.
Christine Quirk MOVED to extend the CUP for Tax Map/Lot #6/41-45 to July 30, 2005.
James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
7. Schedule a compliance site walk for Michael P. Gagnon, Mr. Gee’s Tire Corp, to expand
existing tire sales garage, Tax Map/Lot #3/82, NH Rt. 114, for the Board’s action.
A site walk was scheduled for June 7, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. The Chairman asked the Coordinator to notify Will Lambert whose site was located near Mr. Gee’s tires that the Boardcould do a compliance site walk regarding his plan on that evening also if it suited him.
8. A copy of a letter received May 18, 2005, from Dick Ludders, Clerk, Piscataquog Local
Advisory Committee, to Mr. Peter Hogan, Chairman, New Boston Planning Board, Re:
New Boston representative to the PRLAC, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Board determined that the above letter could be forwarded to the Selectmen.
10. The minutes of May 10, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of June 14,
2005, with or without changes.
12. Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-
24, Swanson Road, for the Planning Board approval. (Drive by prior to meeting)
James Nordstrom stated that the above noted lot seemed to fall away from the road and the proposed driveway could achieve less than the 10% grade, although he was not certain. Douglas Hill thought that Lot #32-24’s driveway would have a more palatable design than the neighboring Lot #32-25. The Chairman noted that if there was any question regarding whether the final grade of the driveway would fall within the Town’s requirements then an inspection could be done by the Board after its construction. James Nordstrom asked how the Board would verify the final grade. The Chairman replied that a gauge could be used. James Nordstrom noted that the driveway design provided on the Lot’s septic plan appeared to be graphically steeper than what would be
allowed. Don Duhaime noted that the Board required that an engineering design of the driveways for the previous two lots of this subdivision when their Driveway Permit Applications came before the Board. The Chairman asked Don Duhaime if he felt this scenario warranted the same response. Don Duhaime replied that James Nordstrom seemed to think that the final grade of the driveway could be greater than 10%. James Nordstrom added that the driveway had the potential of a grade greater than 10% and if the Board required engineered driveway plans they would need follow up requirements as well because they would have no way of knowing if the final construction matched the design. The Chairman noted that if the post construction inspection showed that the driveway grade exceeded 10% that would clarify that the driveway was not built according to its plan. James Nordstrom stated that an engineered design could be required and authorized by the designer
that it could be built to the specifications
noted. The Board’s consensus was for such a requirement.
13. Driveway compliance approvals for Indian Falls, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/89-4 & 12,
Indian Falls Road, for the Board’s action.
The Chairman stated that it appeared that the driveways of the above noted Lots were in compliance. Don Duhaime remarked that Lot #12/89-11 had wetlands behind its house that flowed under its driveway to Lot #12/89-13. James Nordstrom thought that building the house on Lot #12/89-13 might have impacted those wetlands. Don Duhaime stated that it appeared that the rear right hand portion of Lot #12/89-11 had an existing wet area that flowed through the woods and across its driveway to Lot #12/89-13. He added that he saw no culvert in that area, only stone.
Douglas Hill asked if the Board did compliance approvals at rough grades. The Chairman explained that the Board required driveway aprons be in place and rough grade for the remaining portion rather than paving because their main issue was that the driveway grade fall within the Town’s requirements. He added that in certain scenarios a crushed base was required by the Board prior to its driveway compliance approval.
Christine Quirk MOVED to grant the compliance of the driveways for Tax Map/Lot #’s
12/89-4 & 12. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Travis Daniels MOVED to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m. Christine Quirk seconded
the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
14. A copy of the draft minutes of the ZBA from their meeting of May 17, 2005, Lull Road
Corporation, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman noted that Lull Road Corporation was denied their special exception request at the above noted meeting.
15. A copy of the draft minutes of the ZBA from their meeting of May 19, 2005, Clifton
Labree, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman noted that the above applicant was granted a variance at this meeting with conditions.
16. A copy of the Master Plan Committee meeting minutes of May 19, 2005, was distributed
for the Board’s information.
17. Discussion: revocation process for AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.’s, site plan for a
personal wireless facility at the New Boston Town Hall, Tax Map/Lot #18/36.
The Planning Assistant stated that they had not heard from any representatives of AT& T Wireless Services (now Cingular) since their last request for an extension to their conditions subsequent. James Nordstrom stated that he was not willing to grant another extension. The Board agreed. The Coordinator stated that she would schedule a revocation hearing.
18. A copy of a memo dated May 24, 2005, from Nicola Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, to the Board, Re: Dan Donovan, Proposed Facility, Bedford Road, Tax
Map/Lot #9/63-1, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator explained that the Donovans had received the letter she sent following the Planning Board’s meeting at which they determined that the driveway to Lot #9/61 would not be shared by Lot #9/63-1 and also that the Planning Board thought a site plan would be needed for the proposed facility. She noted that the Donovans were adamant that no site plan should be required and referred her to research done for their Briar Hill Road facility. The Coordinator stated that at the time of that facility the Town decided that nothing should be required of the Donovans. She noted that her research into the issue suggested that the Donovans could request a “reasonable accommodation” from the Town to allow them to have a 13 bed facility in the single family
district. Discussion with Bill Drescher, Esq., however, suggested that a variance and site plan review would be required. The Coordinator thought that her memo and research should be sent to Bill Drescher, Esq., for his review with a formal request for him to render an opinion. The Board agreed.
19. Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Popple and Swanson
Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/32-4 & 23, for a proposed driveway, for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator stated that the engineered plans required by the Board were received at the Planning Department today. Given the late hour, and the last minute submission of the plans, the Chairman suggested that this item should be addressed at the next meeting. The Board agreed.
20. A copy of an invitation from University of NH Cooperative Extension for June 9, 2005,
Population Demographics of Hillsborough County and Their Potential Implications for
Our Communities and County, was distributed for the Board’s information.
21. Read File: Memo from David Preece, SNHPC, Re: Solicitation for 2005-2006 Projects
for Transportation Enhancement Programs and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Funds.
2. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for David L. Lyons and Susan R. Charest-Lyons,
Laurel Lane, Tax Map/Lot #12/106, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.
3. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for David L. and Janet E. Nixon, Lyndeborough
Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/58, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.
4. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Susan Martin, South Hill & McCollum
Roads, Tax Map/Lot #14/1, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Subdivision Plan.
5. Endorsement of a Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Right Way Builders, Inc., and Howard
and Francis Towne, Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/52 and 52-1, by the Planning Board
Chairman and Secretary.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Lot Line Adjustment Plan.
At 11:45 p.m. Travis Daniels MOVED to adjourn. Christine Quirk seconded the
motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien,
Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
| 
