Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 01/10/2006
Minutes of the Planning Board January 10, 2006

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan.  Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Travis Daniels and Bob Furey; ex-officio Dave Woodbury; and, alternate Douglas Hill.  Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.    
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting, were Bob and Sharon Huettner, Charles Cleary, Esq., Emile Bussiere, Esq., Jay Marden, Willard Dodge, Dave Elliot, John and Denise Neville, Roch Larochelle, Rick Martin, Bob Todd, LLS, Cynthia Wilson, Donald Desruisseaux, Bob Kilmer, Timothy Watson, Dean Glow, Dana Lorden, Don Sipe, Don Grosso, Randy Sandford and Ken Lombard.

PUBLIC HEARING-Petition to Amend the Zoning Ordinance

        The Chairman referenced the public hearing notice as noticed in the Union Leader and posted in Town:  “A petition signed by 25 registered voters in the Town of New Boston has been submitted and accepted by the Board of Selectmen as being in correct warrant article form.  This petition proposes an amendment to the New Boston Zoning Ordinance, Article II, Section 202, Zoning Map, to change the district relative to Tax Map/Lot #15/16 from Manufactured Housing Park “MHP” to Residential-Agricultural “R-A”.  This property is located in part on Bedford Road and is approximately 84 acres.”
        Petitioner Emile Bussiere was present in the audience.  He stated that given the substantial development in the area surrounding Tax Map/Lot #15/16 it seemed timely to address its zoning as a Manufactured Home Park.  Emile Bussiere added that the Zoning of “MHP” seemed out of character by today’s standards for the Town and that he wished to amend it on behalf of his children’s interests and the fact that he was working closely with other developers in the area, namely, the Dupuis and LeBlanc families.  He wished to have this parcel of land zoned more appropriately as an “R-A” District.  The Chairman noted that this Zoning amendment was partially suggested by the Board and that it seemed an appropriate proposal.
He noted that Planning Board had to note their approval or disapproval of the petition.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the petition to amend the New Boston Zoning    Ordinance, Article II, Section 202, Zoning Map, to change the district relative to Tax  Map/Lot #15/16 from Manufactured Housing Park “MHP” to Residential-Agricultural         “R-A” and to place the article on the ballot.  Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it         PASSED unanimously.  

PUBLIC HEARING-Petition to Amend the Zoning Ordinance

        The Chairman referenced the public hearing notice as noticed in the Union Leader and posted in Town:  “A petition signed by 25 registered voters in the Town of New Boston has been submitted and accepted by the Board of Selectmen as being in correct warrant article form.  This petition proposes an amendment to the New Boston Zoning Ordinance, Article II, Section 204.5, Manufactured Housing Park “MHP” District, to allow One-Family Dwellings without application of manufactured housing park regulations and to provide that Area, Density, and
PUBLIC HEARING-Petition to Amend the Zoning Ordinance-Huettner

Dimensional requirements shall be the same as for One-Family Dwellings in the Residential-One
“R-1” District.”
        Present in the audience were Charles Cleary, Esq., petioner Bob Huettner, who prepared the petition and his wife Sharon Huettner.  Interested parties were Jay Marden, Willard Dodge and Emile Bussiere.  Charles Cleary, Esq., stated that the “MHP” District was a single use exclusionary district and it did not seem to make sense for this property.  He added that the property was 125 acres bordering the town of Weare, NH, with no water or sewer available and an aquifer nearby.  Charles Cleary, Esq., further added that the “MHP” District stipulated that if  a manufactured housing park was constructed most of the site would require paving and lamp posts would be required at every unit.  He noted that the property was surrounded by residential uses which were another reason the “MHP” District seemed inappropriate.  Charles Cleary, Esq., further noted that according to “MHP” regulations one or more large septic systems would be required because on site leach fields for each unit were not permitted.  He stated that the demand for manufactured housing parks in the Town was not present.  Charles Cleary, Esq., stated that in 1995 there were 62 mobile home units in the Town and that the Master Plan predicted 94 by 2015.  He noted that these mobile units were being built on individual lots and that manufactured housing parks were not being proposed because New Boston lacked the density and urban setting for such development.  Charles Cleary, Esq., asked that the additional use of Single Family Dwelling be allowed in addition to the “MHP” use.  The Chairman asked if an “R1” or “RA” zone should be considered for the site.  Charles Cleary, Esq., replied that he thought it counterintuitive to go back to an “R-A” zone as some level of density existed on the site, therefore, “R1” seemed a reasonable compromise inclusive with the “MHP” zone.
        Jay Marden asked the location of the property.  Charles Cleary, Esq., replied that this was the property owned by Clif Wilson.  Jay Marden noted that when Clif Wilson had zoned “MHP” properties in Weare, NH, years prior he had requested the same for this property at the same time, however, that type of development never came to pass.  He added that unless
it was a State requirement to have such Zoning on a certain amount of Town land he did not think it unreasonable to allow a lesser intensive use such as Single Family Housing.
        Dave Woodbury noted that one of the permitted uses in the “R1” District was to allow multi-family dwellings.  Charles Cleary, Esq., replied that his proposed amendment to Zoning sought to allow single family homes and not multi-family.  James Nordstrom clarified that Charles Cleary, Esq., sought to modify the use of the district.  Dave Woodbury noted that a tract of the Clif Wilson property was partially in Weare, NH, and asked what steps would be needed to conform with that town if that was required at all.  Charles Cleary, Esq., replied that the proposed amendment dealt with the New Boston portion of land only and if the portion of land in Weare, NH, was zoned for “MHP” he was not seeking to delete that use, only adding to it.  
        Dave Woodbury stated that within the last few weeks a manufactured or mobile home was placed on this property which had concerned the town of Weare, NH.  He noted that in looking into the matter it was discovered that it was on this lot for storage only and would eventually be moved.  Dave Woodbury then asked if the landowner had any interest in mobile or manufactured homes for this property.  Charles Cleary, Esq., replied that they did not.  Bob
PUBLIC HEARING-Petition to Amend the Zoning Ordinance-Huettner

Huettner stated that a trailer was being stored on the property for another party during the winter.
        Jay Marden asked if the amendment was approved, would it reference how single family homes would be delineated, i.e., would they need to comply with the 200’ frontage requirement as in the “RA” district, etc.  The Chairman replied that it would comply with the “R1” district and referred to a portion of the proposed amendment which read: “…Area, Density, and Dimensional requirements shall be the same as for One-Family Dwellings in the Residential-One “R-1” District.”  The Chairman felt that the proposed amendment seemed fairly restrictive and would accomplish what was necessary.  James Nordstrom noted that a significant difference was the density of units and that Jay Marden’s point was that if single family dwellings in a Zoning District with “MHP” guidelines, density could be increased, however, by the “R1” guidelines they could not.  Charles Cleary, Esq., explained that he was attempting to change the Ordinance as little as possible, however, if the Town preferred to eliminate the “MHP” District for this property the landowners would have no objection.  The Chairman was not aware of any provision that would require the “MHP” District to remain.  Willard Dodge noted that at the time such Zoning was established Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC) was assuring that there were available areas in towns to allow manufactured home development to occur as that was the rationale at that time.  Emile Bussiere commented that he was never notified that his property bore the “MHP” District title, however, he had only been holding the property for investment purposes at that time.  
        The Chairman stated that he had no issue with the way the amendment proposal was written.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the petition to amend the New Boston Zoning    Ordinance, Article II, Section 204.5, “MHP” Manufactured Housing Parks, to add as a     permitted use in the Manufactured Housing Park “MHP” District, One-Family Dwellings     without application of manufactured housing park regulations and to provide that Area,  Density, and Dimensional requirements shall be the same as for One-Family Dwellings in the Residential-One “R-1” District and to place the article on the ballot.  Dave Woodbury        seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
        
At 7:25 p.m. the Planning Board took a five minute break before the scheduled 7:30 p.m. hearing.
                                                      
PUBLIC HEARING-Petition to Amend the Zoning Ordinance
        
        The Chairman referenced the public hearing notice as noticed in the Union Leader and posted in Town:  “A petition signed by 25 registered voters in the Town of New Boston has been submitted and accepted by the Board of Selectmen as being in correct warrant article form.  This petition proposes an amendment to the New Boston Zoning Ordinance, Article II, Section 202, Zoning Map, to change the district relative to Tax Map/Lot #3/63-24 from Residential-Agricultural “R-A” to Commercial “COM”.  This property is located on Whipplewill Road with
PUBLIC HEARING-Petition to Amend the Zoning Ordinance-Neville

approximately 317.02 feet of frontage and a total of 3.010 acres.”
        John Neville, who prepared the petition,  was present with his wife Denise and stated that he wished to add a building on the site to gain more storage area and added that the proposed addition would be located on the “leg” of Whipplewill Road towards Weare, NH, overlooking Cornerstone Auto and his existing shop.
        Dave Woodbury questioned the names with strike-throughs on the petition.  The Coordinator explained that these were not registered voters in the Town, however, enough names were registered to satisfy the count for the petition.  Dave Woodbury stated that he assumed that feedback from abutters was favorable regarding this petition.  The Chairman added that he had no issue with the terms of the petition.

        Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the petition to amend the New Boston Zoning      Ordinance, Article II, Section 202, Zoning Map, to change the district relative to Tax  Map 3, Lot 63-24, from Residential “R” to Commercial “COM”, a total of 3.010 acres      and to place the article on the ballot.  James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it     PASSED unanimously.

        The Chairman stated that the petition was successfully recommended by the Board and would now go onto the March, 2006 ballot.

        Because the next public hearing was scheduled for 7:45 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break at 7:35 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING-Changes and Additions to the Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance by the Planning Board.

        The Chairman referenced the public hearing notice as noticed in the Union Leader and posted in Town.  It was noted that the Steep Slopes Conservation District amendment had been altered per the first public hearing on 12/13/05.  The remaining amendments were the same as originally posted.
        There being no one present in the audience with an interest in the amendments, the Chairman called for a vote.  

        Dave Woodbury MOVED to forward the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance  to be placed on the March, 2006, ballots with the recommendation of the Planning Board.         James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.




MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 10, 2006

1.      Approval of minutes of November 22, 2005, with or without changes, distributed at the   meeting of December 13, 2005. (No Copies)

                Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the minutes of November 22, 2005, as                     written.  James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED                                     unanimously.

2.      The minutes of December 13, 2005, were distributed for approval at the meeting of       January 24, 2006, with or without changes.

3.      Discussion, Re: New Boston Pizza-Amendment of existing site plan to show current        building occupants and parking spaces-24 seat eat-in restaurant.

        Because the applicant was due to be present for this discussion the Board determined that they would address this item later in the evening.  The same was true for item #4.

4.      Driveway Permit Application for Randy Sandford, Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot # 6/41-3,        for the Board’s action.

5.      Driveway Permit Applications for Thibeault Corp. of N.E., Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #      6/41-1, 6/41-2, 6/41-4, 6/41-5, 6/41-6, & 6/41-7, for the Board’s action.
        (Certified Driveway Plans available at office (Drive-by prior to meeting)

        The Coordinator explained that Brian Holt of Thibeault Corporation had contacted the Planning Department before the meeting and due to the fact that the driveways had not been staked and revisions to the plans were still needed he requested that the Board not act on the permits this evening.

6.      Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Jane L. & John P. Workman, Pine and Thornton Roads, Tax Map/Lot #4/41, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

        Because multiple signature sheets were involved it was determined that the Chairman and Secretary would address this item and subsequent item #’s 7-9 at the end of the meeting.

7.      Endorsement of a Site Plan for Granite State Concrete Co., Inc., Salisbury Road, Tax    Map/Lot #13/5, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

8.      Endorsement of a Site Plan for William Lambert, J&W Landscaping, Hemlock Drive,         Tax Map/Lot #3/52-26, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.


9.      Endorsement of a Site Plan for James W. & Ruth C. Dodge, Rt 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Tax    Map/Lot # 5/21-1, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

10.     Endorsement of an agreement for Geoffrey Katz, Apple Barn, 3 Central Square, Tax Map/Lot #18/12, by the Planning Board Chairman.
        
        The Chairman endorsed the above noted agreement.

11.     A copy of a letter received December 30, 2005, from John Greenwood, Project Manager,    R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: request for an  extension on conditions subsequent until end of July, 2006, was distributed for the     Board’s action.

        Dave Woodbury MOVED to extend the conditions subsequent for R.J. Moreau         Communities, LLC, Popple, Swanson and Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #’s 6/32 and        p/o 9/22, to July 30, 2006.  Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED   unanimously.

12.     A copy of the New Boston Master Plan revised schedule was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

        The Coordinator explained that the old Master Plan schedule ended at December, 2005, therefore, a new schedule was done which went through June, 2006, and noted what work remained to be done.  The Chairman clarified that this was a modification to the original schedule.  The Coordinator replied that was the case.  Dave Woodbury asked if the Master Plan had ever been considered complete in the past and/or if the revisions being made were necessary because it was out of date.  The Coordinator replied that in 1989 the Master Plan was considered complete and that updates to that version began in 1997 along with new chapters being added in 2000.  She noted that this time the Master Plan would be considered complete once again during 2006, however more revisions would be forthcoming soon afterwards as was the cyclical pattern.

13.     A copy of the Scope of Work, Re: New Boston Zoning & Subdivisions, was distributed      for the Board’s review and discussion.
        
        The Coordinator explained that the Scope of Work was put together by the SNHPC to estimate work on the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.  She noted that if the Master Plan was finished in June, 2006 and the Town waited until 2007 to request the funds needed for SNHPC to complete this task then it would take until 2008 to have it addressed and in this way having a Scope of Work now would allow the work to be completed sooner.  The Chairman asked how long SNHPC expected their review of the regulations to take.  The Coordinator replied that if the Master Plan was completed by the Town in June, 2006, SNHPC could begin their review in July, 2006, and should have something ready by year-end for the March, 2007, ballot.  The Chairman noted that the estimated review cost of $50.00/hour at approximately 300 hours or $15K seemed reasonable.
        Douglas Hill asked what type of review SNHPC would provide.  The Coordinator replied that SNHPC would evaluate current Ordinances and possibly suggest updates that were needed, for example, to Cluster Regulations, and could also make other suggestions such as phasing development ordinances, etc.  Dave Woodbury noted that the Road Committee had some ideas for the Subdivision Regulations regarding the reevaluation of road standards in the Town.  He asked if this input would be considered as part of the Scope of Work.  The Coordinator replied that it would be included in the Transportation section of the Master Plan and the Subdivision Regulations update could follow from that.  She added that the Selectmen had discussed the Scope of Work and pending the Board’s consensus the $15K fee could be approved.  The Board’s consensus was to approve the $15K for inclusion as a warrant article on the 2006 ballot.

14a.    A copy of a letter to Mitch Larochelle, Mitch Construction Co., Inc., from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, New Boston Planning Department, Re: Carriage Road/Susan Road Sight Distance, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

        This item addressed with 14b.

14b.    A copy of a letter received December 27, 2005, from Mitch Larochelle, Mitch     Construction Co., Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, New Boston Planning     Board, Re: Carriage Road/Susan Road Sight Distance, was distributed for the Board’s     review and discussion.

        The Chairman asked if the Road Committee had forwarded their comments to the Board regarding the sight distance issues of Carriage Drive where it intersected Susan Road.  The Coordinator replied that they had not.  Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, was present in the audience and asked if a formal request for this input had been made to the Road Agent.  The Coordinator replied that this request was made.  The Chairman then asked Roch Larochelle if he had viewed the intersection of Carriage Road and Susan Road.  Roch Larochelle replied that he had not and had only reviewed plan sketches that had been provided to the Town Engineer.  The Chairman commented that this scenario was unusual as the developer was attempting to change the stipulations of an approved plan to satisfy abutters, however, by doing so sight distance would be compromised.  Roch Larochelle stated that he would discuss this item with the Road Agent and asked if the Board had a desired timeline to rectify the sight distance issues.  The Chairman replied that he would like to see the matter settled and added that if the abutters wishes were satisfied in the end it would also save the developer sizable blasting fees.
        Dave Woodbury asked if correspondence highlighting this issue was forwarded to the Road Agent and the Road Committee.  The Coordinator replied that a separate letter which listed the issues regarding sight distance for Carriage/Susan Road had been sent to the Road Committee.  A copy of this correspondence was then provided to Roch Larochelle who then reviewed its contents.  Roch Larochelle asked what the opinion of the Town Engineer was on the matter.  The Chairman replied that he believed the Town Engineer’s current opinion was to abide by the approved plan and conduct blasting on Carriage Road in order to achieve the sight distance needed at the Susan Road intersection.  The Coordinator concurred.  James Nordstrom noted that the sketches Roch Larochelle viewed were drawn by Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, of Sandford Survey and Engineering on behalf of the concerned residents on Carriage Road who did not want the improvements made.  He added that these sketches showed what Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, believed to be the effects to through traffic sight distance if intersection sight distance were improved according to the original plan.  The Chairman noted that the residents desired a three way stop at the intersection which the Town Engineer did not favor.  Interested party Cynthia Wilson stated that she lived in the vicinity of the site and when the initial blastings to Carriage Road occurred she could feel the vibration and, therefore, assumed that abutters had an even more intense reaction.
        The Chairman asked that the Road Committee review the issue given the knowledge that the Town Engineer’s opinion would not change and to determine what the best option for the Town.  Roch Larochelle replied that they would do so and that he would confer with the Road Agent.  He asked why Carriage Road had not been built to plan specifications.  The Chairman replied that it was, however, the introduction of Susan Road had compromised sight distance and, in order to comply, Carriage Road needed to be lowered by blasting in certain locations.  He added that he wondered why the possibility of the present scenario had not been considered by the developer at the outset in which case Carriage Road could have been graded down further during its construction.

RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC.        Adjourned from 12/13/05
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Subdivision/NRSPR/Condominium
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/29
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, and the applicant, Rick Martin.  No abutters or interested parties were present.
        Bob Todd, LLS, stated that at the last meeting the Board had been concerned about the proposed parking in front of the condominium units and that, as a solution the applicant had now shown on the plan four proposed parking spaces lined up on the eastern side of the existing large gravel surface in front of what was once a chicken barn on the site.  He added that the plan also showed the driveway widened to 16’ to facilitate two-way passage of vehicles on the existing gravel surface.  Bob Todd, LLS, stated that no other changes had been made to the plan since the last meeting.  He added that he had submitted three requests for waivers which regarded the requirement for Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies, erosion and sediment control plan and soils information for the Wetland Conservation District.  Dave Woodbury interjected that he believed these waivers had been granted at the last meeting.  The Board agreed.
        Douglas Hill asked if Town Counsel had reviewed the legal documents of the plan.  The Coordinator replied that this review was pending.  Douglas Hill asked what documents needed review.  The Coordinator replied that the Declaration of Covenants for Condominiums needed to be reviewed.

        Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the application of Right Way Builders, Inc.,      Subdivision and Non-Residential Site Plan Review, Condominium Conveyance,       Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/29, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as    complete.  Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the application of Right Way Builders, Inc.,   Subdivision and Non-Residential Site Plan Review, Condominium Conveyance,       Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/29, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District,
        subject to:
        
CONDITIONS PRECEDEDNT:
       1.   Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all    
                      of the checklist corrections and any corrections noted at this hearing;
        2.   Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
        3.   Receipt of Town Counsel’s approval of the Declaration of Condominium Covenants:
        4.   Execution of a Site Review Agreement;
        5.   Submission of any outstanding application fees and the fees for recording the Site Review Agreement at the HCRD.
        The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be March 1, 2006,        
        the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action from     the Board.  Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board map convene a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.

CONDITION(S) SUBSEQUENT:
1.   All site improvements are to be completed per the approved site plans;
2.   The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that               all improvements have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to
      scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three(3) weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing;
3.   Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be                            submitted;   

4.   A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have                  been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of Permit to                 Operate or Certificate of Occupancy, or both.  No occupancy/use of the building shall be permitted until the site improvements as noted have been completed, and a site inspection and compliance hearing held.                         

The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be April 1, 2006, the   confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing noted in item #4      above.  Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

R.J. MOREAU COMMUNITIES, LLC            Adjourned from 12/13/05
Compliance Hearing/Conditional Use Permit/1 Wetland Crossing
Location: Inkberry Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/41-45
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice.  The Coordinator stated that the outstanding fees had been the only issue and had been received.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the construction of one wetland crossing on Tax Map/Lot #6/41-45 by R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, and to release the security being held for said installation.  Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

15.     A copy of a letter received December 23, 2005, from David J. Preece, AICP, Southern NH Planning Commission, to Peter Hogan, Chairman, New Boston Planning Board, Re: Planning Board Assistance Program (PBA), was distributed for the Board’s information.

        The Coordinator explained that SNHPC offered a program where, for an annual fee, the Town could use their planners for various projects, plan reviews, etc., below what the standard fee would be.  She questioned whether this type of program would benefit the Town.  James Nordstrom asked the Coordinator her opinion on this offer.  The Coordinator replied that she did not think that the Town would have a need for such service on a regular basis and that it might be more appropriate for a town that did not have a planning staff.  She added that many times if she called SNHPC with a question they helped her anyway. Dave Woodbury likened the scenario to purchasing an extended warranty on an appliance and noted that in many cases it was better not to do so.  The Chairman agreed with the Coordinator’s thoughts that such a program would be better for smaller towns that did not have full time planning staffs.

16.     A copy of a letter to Betsey Dodge, Chair, New Boston Conservation Commission, from     Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, Re: Planning Board Liason, was distributed for the Board’s information.

This item addressed with item #23 which follows.

23.     A copy of a letter dated January 9, 2006, from Cynthia Wilson, NB Conservation  Commission, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, Re: follow up of letter dated       December 30, 2005.

        The Coordinator explained that going forward Conservation Commission member Cynthia Wilson and/or Burr Tupper would be present at Planning Board meetings to represent the Commission’s interest in applicable hearings.

17.     A daily road inspection report dated November 18, 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc. Re: Highland Hills, was distributed for the Board’s information.

18.     Read File: Notice of Receipt of 2005 Traffic Counts from Southern NH Planning   Commission.

19.     Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for Locus Field, LLC, Hopkins & Salisbury        
        Roads, 13/15, by the Planning Board Chairman.

        The Chairman endorsed the above noted Subdivision Agreement.

20.     Endorsement of a Site Review Agreement for William Lambert, Hemlock Drive, 3/52-26, by the Planning Board Chairman.

        The Chairman endorsed the above noted Site Review Agreement.

21.     A copy of a faxed letter received January 6, 2006, from Mark LeBlanc, Golden Oak        
        Developers, LLC, to the New Boston Planning Board, Re: request for extension on         
        conditions subsequent, for the Board’s action.

        The Chairman asked what date the applicant requested for extension.  The Coordinator replied that June of 2006, was requested.  
        
        James Nordstrom MOVED to extend the conditions precedent for Golden Oak         Developers, LLC, to June 30, 2006.  Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it    PASSED unanimously.

22.     A copy of the 2005 Income and Expense report for the New Boston Planning        Department, was distributed for the Board’s information.

24.     The Coordinator stated that she had written and distributed a memo to Board members regarding the scope of the Planning Board’s discretion in reference to acting on applications and how much information should be requested in order to do so.  She asked that the Board read the memo at their convenience and if it raised more questions to inform her.

DONALD E. GARRETSON (APPLICANT/OWNER)           Adjourned from 11/22/05
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC., RICK MARTIN (APPLICANT)       
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/20 Lots
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 52
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  He noted that the applicant had submitted a letter beforehand requesting that the hearing be rescheduled to January 24, 2006, however, this date was unavailable.  The Coordinator noted that the applicant had also questioned whether it would be sensible to meet with the Town Engineer, Road Committee and Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, before the next scheduled meeting with the Board.  The Chairman felt this would be beneficial to the application.  James Nordstrom noted that the hinge point of the application were the proposed offsite improvements to Beard Road.

Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn the application of Donald E. Garretson   (Applicant/Owner), and Right Way Builders, Inc., Rick Martin (Applicant), Major         Subdivision, 20 Lots, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 52, Residential-        Agricultural “R-A” District, to February 14, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.  James Nordstrom        seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

DONALD DESRUISSEAUX
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Minor Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Lyndeborough Road
Tax Map/Lot # 10/74
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Bob Kilmer of Duval Surveying and the applicant Donald Desruisseaux.  No abutters or interested parties were present.  
        Bob Kilmer submitted revised plans that referenced changes in Steep Slopes definitions and waiver requests.  He explained that the existing house on the site had been vacant for approximately one year which the applicant was refurbishing and he also sought to subdivide a parcel between the Piscataquog River and the house.  Bob Kilmer noted that the revised plans submitted this evening had more hatch markings to redefine Steep Slopes along with lines defining suitable building envelopes and land area tables.  He added that the total area of both lots would be greater than two acres and that contiguous dry land on the existing lot would be 2.19 acres and the new lot would be 2.89 acres.  Bob Kilmer further added that the suitable building envelope for the lot with the existing house would be 0.7 acres and the proposed lot would be 0.6 acres.  Douglas Hill asked if the area comprised one original lot.  Bob Kilmer replied that it was originally 4.9 acres and the breakdown proposed was now 2.6 acres of the parent lot and 2.3 acres for the proposed lot.
        James Nordstrom asked why Lot #74 showed two separate well radii.  Bob Kilmer
replied that there was an existing well on the site and that a proposed well was shown when the applicant applied for State Subdivision Approval as it was uncertain if the existing well’s water was usable.  James Nordstrom asked if the new well proposed was closer to Lyndeborough Road.  Bob Kilmer replied that it was.
        Dave Woodbury asked the Coordinator if having the 200’ square abutting a side line on the plan was an issue.  The Coordinator replied that it was not.  Bob Kilmer stated that he was submitting two sheets of the plan set and that the first sheet illustrated the critical areas and buildable areas of the subdivision while the second sheet showed the soils mapping.  Bob Furey asked if the location of the driveway for the proposed lot #74-1 was the best choice in consideration of sight distance.  Bob Kilmer replied that the proposed driveway location gave sight distance up the road and to the existing bridge on Lyndeborough Road, however, they had to stake a location in order to get the building permit and could reconsider the location if necessary.  Douglas Hill asked if the other driveway noted on the plan was existing.  Bob Kilmer replied that it was but had been moved closer to the front of the existing house.  
        Dave Woodbury asked the Coordinator if the revised plans submitted this evening addressed the outstanding issues she had noted on the checklist in order to determine the completeness of the plan.  The Coordinator replied that the content of information in the revised plan would not make any difference in determining its completeness and that a physical list of submittals whether they contained information that was accurate or inaccurate was what was needed procedurally.  Douglas Hill asked if the revised plan met the checklist requirements.  The Coordinator replied that she questioned whether the Stormwater Management was a requirement under Section V-V of the Subdivision Regulations.  She added that a waiver request was needed for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies.  Bob Kilmer stated that the applicant did not feel that they were exceeding 20,000 s.f. of impact and that this could be confirmed during the building process and septic designs.  He added that the waiver requests for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact studies they had been requested in writing and that the conservation easement was updated with the Nixon’s (abutters) and a copy provided to the Society of the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.  Bob Kilmer stated that the monuments would be set by the final plan and the tick marks to show directional changes on the plan had been added.  He noted that the right-of-way width was always shown and noted it on the plan while a new land area table showed the breakdown of the total area of contiguous dry land.  Bob Kilmer read the plan note dealing with critical areas: “Any construction in the critical areas as defined by the Zoning Ordinance will require Stormwater Management Plans to be submitted prior to issuance of a permit”.  Douglas Hill asked if any building areas were in the critical ranges.  Bob Kilmer replied they were not and did not expect to be as 0.5 acres of suitable building area was required and the lots were at 0.7 and 0.6 acres.
        Douglas Hill asked if any fire fighting water supply existed in that area such as a cistern.  The Coordinator replied there was not.  The Chairman asked if the applicant had considered sprinkling the house constructed on the proposed lot.  Donald Desruisseaux asked if it was a requirement of the Building Department.  The Chairman replied that it was not, however, fire fighting water supply in that area was minimal, therefore, fire sprinklers would be beneficial.  
Bob Kilmer clarified that cisterns were considered in major subdivisions.  The Chairman replied that was correct and that in the applicant’s case fire sprinklers would be a more appropriate choice.  

        Dave Woodbury MOVED to grant the waivers requested for the Traffic, Fiscal and
        Environmental Impact Studies by the written request of Bob Kilmer, Duval Surveying,for the application of Donald Desruisseaux, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location:     Lyndeborough Road, Tax Map/Lot #10/74, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District.         
        James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.  

        Dave Woodbury asked how the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan should be addressed.  Douglas Hill thought that if the applicant’s suitable building envelopes were not in the critical areas then there should not be an issue.  The Chairman asked if the plan included a note that stated there would be no construction within critical areas.  Bob Kilmer replied there was not, however, he had included the note quoted earlier that called for a Stormwater Management Plan if those areas were disturbed.  The Chairman felt that the note met the requirement.
        Bob Kilmer asked if the top sheet of the plan could be recorded with the HCRD with the soils plan remaining on file with the Town and at the office of Duval Surveying.  He additionally asked if the critical areas were required to be shown on the plan or if the plan notes along with the soils plan being on record would suffice.  Bob Kilmer explained that in this way the plan would be cleaner and the lots more visible.  The Coordinator replied that the Board had not been asked that question before.  Douglas Hill suggested that the applicant only show the suitable building area line work with anything outside of those boundaries being considered the critical areas.  Bob Kilmer replied that this could be done.
        The Chairman asked if a site walk was warranted and asked the Conservation Commission’s opinion.  Cynthia Wilson of the Conservation Commission asked if the prior discussion meant that the house on the proposed lot would be built closer to the road and not as close to the river.  Douglas Hill replied that the buildable area on the plan would not be in a critical zone otherwise the applicant would need to come back before the Board with a Stormwater Management Plan to show how they would protect against erosion and drainage issues.  Jay Marden asked if the critical areas were being delineated on the plan.  Douglas Hill replied that only non-critical areas would be shown which would be the buildable areas.  Cynthia Wilson noted that she did not see any other wetlands on the plan except the river and did not feel that the Conservation Commission would need to do a site walk.  Dave Woodbury did not feel that the Board needed to do a site walk either.  The Chairman agreed and added that he was familiar with the property due to the recent Nixon plan which dealt with property across the street from the site.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Donald Desruisseaux, Minor   Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Lyndeborough Road, Tax Map/Lot #10/74, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete.  Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        The Chairman asked if there were any other outstanding issues with the plan.  The Coordinator replied that the location of the proposed driveway was still questionable, however, that could be handled separately.  She added that when a subdivision down the road from the site was constructed it was determined that a road crossing culvert would need to drain onto private property because the traveled way was not centered in the right-of-way, therefore, an easement was granted to accommodate this.  She noted that the applicant may wish to do the same for the road crossing culvert proposed on his plan.  The Chairman asked the applicant if he would be willing to grant such an easement to the Town.  Don Desruisseaux replied that he was agreeable and added that he had spoken with the Road Agent regarding the plugged condition of the culvert in question.  The Chairman stated that an easement would need to be submitted to the Board and that the Planning Department could give the applicant a sample template based on the easement that was done for the road crossing culvert up the road from the site.  Bob Kilmer noted that the existing easement up the road was 30' X 50' X 30' and asked if this was the standard size that should be used.  The Coordinator replied that this was the proposal of the applicant who did that subdivision and Mr. Desruisseaux could decide on his own proposal.  Bob Kilmer stated that they would confer with the Road Agent on this matter.
        Douglas Hill asked if a driveway permit for the driveway to the existing house which was proposed at a new location was submitted.  The Coordinator replied that it was and still needed to be reviewed by the Road Agent.  The Chairman stated that the Board would need to view the driveway and obtain the Road Agent’s opinion.  He asked that it be staked with centerlines identified.  Bob Kilmer replied that this would be done.
        The Chairman stated that the application could be approved pending the easement language.  James Nordstrom asked if there was anyone on the Board who had an issue with granting a conditional approval.  No members of the Board objected.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision/2 Lots, by Donald        Desruisseaux, Prepared for Construct Plus, Inc., Tax Map/Lot #10/74, Lyndeborough Road, subject to:

CONDITIONS PRECEDEDNT:
       1.   Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all    
                      of the checklist corrections and any corrections noted at this hearing;
        2.   Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
        3.   Inclusion on the plan of drainage easement location as discussed at this hearing and submission of an executed drainage easement for recording at the HCRD (if                           necessary);
        4.   Submission of a Certificate of Bounds Set confirming that the monumentation has been placed as on the final plat to be recorded at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds (if necessary).
                5.   Submission of any outstanding application fees related to the subdivision application or recording of documents at the HCRD.

        The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be April 1, 2006,        the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action from     the Board.  Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date, and a written request for extension is not submitted prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board map convene a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.  Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        The Chairman stated that the Board would discuss the driveway locations on the site at the next meeting as a Miscellaneous Business item and if the sight distance and location was determined to be satisfactory from their drive-by viewing there should be no issues.

This will be an informational session with McCurdy Development, LLC, to discuss a potential subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #12/19, McCurdy Road.

        Present for this discussion was Timothy Watson of Cuoco & Cormier and Dean Glow and Dana Lorden of McCurdy Development.  Interested parties were Cynthia Wilson and Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, Jay Marden and Roch Larochelle, Road Committee.
        Timothy Watson submitted updated conceptual plans to the Board and noted that the prior set had been based on 2004 Steep Slopes Regulations.  He added that the revised plans incorporated the proposed amendments for the 2006 ballot.  Cynthia Wilson requested a copy of the plans for the Conservation Commission.  Roch Larochelle also requested a copy of the plan for the Road Committee.  Timothy Watson provided copies to both parties.
        Timothy Watson noted the areas on the plan that comprised Steep Slopes of 15% that covered an area of 1,000 s.f., along with wetlands and very poorly drained soils.  He noted that the wetland areas still needed to be better clarified which they were addressing.  Timothy Watson noted a 75’ buffer around the perimeter of the very poorly drained soils on the plan.  He added that 37 lots were netted on 175 acres which was a little more than 4.5 acres per lot.  Timothy Watson stated that an access to the conceptual subdivision was proposed off McCurdy Road which would then meander through the lot onto Susan Road and then to Carriage Road.  He added that there would be two wetland impacts, one which would require approximately 3,000 s.f. of fill to cross a narrow wetland and another near Susan Road that would need approximately 2,000 s.f. of fill.  Douglas Hill asked why these crossings were not shown on the plan., Timothy Watson replied that they would be part of the plan, however, they were still working on that as a right-of-way needed to be set based on a lot between their conceptual subdivision and the developer of Susan Road that could not be subdivided until a road connection between the two was established.  He questioned who would be responsible for the subdivision of that lot once such a connection was made.  The Chairman replied that it would be the Susan Road developer.
Timothy Watson stated that the proposed road which would connect to Susan Road was 3,600 lineal feet with a cul-de-sac at the midpoint of 1,000 lineal feet.  He added that the conceptual lots proposed on McCurdy and the eastern property line were the larger lots which enabled construction of those homes to be built further away from existing nearby developments.  Timothy Watson further added that most of the wetlands along McCurdy Road would be untouched by the development of this conceptual plan.  He noted that they would provide Stormwater Management Plans where necessary and reiterated that the wetland soils mapping was not yet completed, therefore, a lot could be gained or lost in the final design.
        Cynthia Wilson of the Conservation Commission thought that the area of density was immense as the acreage approached minimum requirements in consideration of surrounding developments.  Timothy Watson noted that there were not many wetlands in the location Cynthia Wilson referred to.  Cynthia Wilson replied that wetlands were not the issue, rather, the density and its impacts to the Town, School and McCurdy Road were the problem.  Dave Woodbury felt that the location on McCurdy Road where it intersected with the proposed access road was a dangerous spot in seasonal weather conditions.  He asked what engineering considerations had been addressed for sight and stopping distances in substandard conditions.  Timothy Watson replied that there was a constant slope in that area and the sight distance seemed satisfactory.  Dave Woodbury stated that he lived in the area and his concern was the stopping sight distance.  He added that traveling uphill on McCurdy and turning left onto the proposed road or downhill and turning right seemed questionable from a safety standpoint.  Dave Woodbury further added that there was existing ledge in that area of the road which would also compromise safety.  Timothy Watson stated that they would look further into this issue.
        Jay Marden asked what areas the developer was considering to set aside on the plan for recreation or wildlife corridors.  Timothy Watson replied that such areas were not proposed at this time but could be discussed with the developer.  Cynthia Wilson stated that the Conservation Commission would like that discussion with considerable acreage in mind.
        Dave Woodbury stated that there seemed to be many backlots on the conceptual plan.  The Chairman pointed out that several lots could not be located where proposed as they were stacked.  He explained that a backlot had to be behind a front lot.  Timothy Watson stated he would review those lots.  Douglas Hill asked if the pink shaded area on the plan represented Steep Slopes greater than 15%.  Timothy Watson replied that was correct.  Douglas Hill asked if the developer was aware that building must occur inside the boxes on the plan that represented the building area.  Timothy Watson noted that if building was to occur outside of these areas if the applicant could submit Stormwater Management Plans.  The Chairman replied that they could do so, however, the applicant would need to appear before the Board again.  Douglas Hill suggested that the plan be redrawn to include the entirety of buildable area, therefore the houses could be constructed anywhere inside those perimeters.  The Coordinator agreed that by extending the building envelopes this would give the developer more options for placing the homes on the lots.
        Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, asked the grade of McCurdy Road at the intersection with the proposed access road to the subdivision.  Timothy Watson replied that he believed the grade was between 8-10%.  Roch Larochelle noted that the developer may want to consider adjustments to vertical grades.  He asked if the profiles for the proposed road and its maximum grades had been considered.  Timothy Watson replied that the maximum grade was 6% and averaged between 4-5% overall with a 3% grade, per Town requirements, for the first 175’ from its entrance off McCurdy Road.  Cynthia Wilson asked if the proposed access road was the existing logging road off McCurdy Road.  Timothy Watson replied that this was not the same road and that the proposed road was uphill on McCurdy Road from the existing logging road.  Cynthia Wilson thought that the logging road should be considered instead as the access road as it was already travelable but would also have one or two wetland crossings.  Timothy Watson replied that the developer sought to minimize wetland impacts by proposing the road as shown on the conceptual plan.  Roch Larochelle cautioned that the roadway geometry of the proposed access may need to be realigned as there did not seem to be enough tangent length on the internal curves.  Timothy Watson noted that there was a section along the proposed road that fell below the required 200’ tangent length for internal curve at 170’ and asked if this could be a waiver.  Bob Furey replied that the Board would want the developer to consider other options before granting such a waiver.  Timothy Watson reiterated that the road design was presented this way because it lessened wetland impacts.  Roch Larochelle asked what the grade of the proposed road was in the area of the internal curve.  Timothy Watson replied that it was under 5%.  James Nordstrom clarified that based on the old plan the road grade before the first wetland crossing was between 3% then decreased to 2%.  He noted that the Subdivision Regulations required that a proposed entrance be off an existing road whose grade at that intersection did not exceed 8%.
        Cynthia Wilson wished to note that the proposed lot #34 was a 20 acre lot with a 0.5 acre building envelope and this lot along with lot #29 could be appropriate lots to consider for conservation easements and/or uplands.  Dave Woodbury stated that the developer should rework the plan and come back to the Board.  Timothy Watson asked if the next meeting with the Board would be considered a design review or a preliminary hearing.  The Chairman recommended a design review in light of certain major issues with the plan such as the grade of McCurdy Road and the layout of the lots in terms of stacking.  Cynthia Wilson asked if a site walk would be considered.  The Chairman replied that scheduling a site walk would be discussed at the next meeting.
        Dean Glow asked if he should be entertaining the use of the existing logging road or not based on comments by the Conservation Committee.  Roch Larochelle replied that opting for this access would be dictated by the grades on McCurdy Road at the proposed entrance to the subdivision.  Dean Glow stated that there would be greater impacts to wetlands if the logging road were used and asked if the proposed road could remain on the plan if the grade on McCurdy at its entrance was found to be 8% or less.  James Nordstrom replied that the grade in question could be no steeper than 8%.
        Dean Glow asked if sprinklers were still the option over cisterns or if the choice was the Board’s discretion.  The Chairman replied that it was the applicant’s choice while the Board favored sprinklers as they considered them a more valuable means of fire fighting water supply.  James Nordstrom clarified that based on the Sprinkler Ordinance the Fire Department could still recommend a smaller cistern for a plan in conjunction with fire sprinklers and the Board could then opt to require both.  Jay Marden stated that he still had issues with that interpretation.

3.      Discussion, Re: New Boston Pizza-Amendment of existing site plan to show current        building occupants and parking spaces-24 seat eat-in restaurant.

        Present in the audience for this item was Don Sipe of New Boston Pizza and Don Grosso, the property owner.
        The Chairman stated that the only issue of the Site Plan was the incorrect listing of two abutters and asked who could legally correct those names on the plan.  Don Sipe replied that he obtained the abutter information from Town files and provided it to Harry Murray, LLS, who did the plan.  He asked which names were listed incorrectly.  The Coordinator replied that “Ruth Tingley” and not ”Ruth Tingley Trust” was the correct listing for Tax Map/Lot # 8/69.  Also that Eileen and Roger Paradis were the owners of Tax Map/Lot #8/108.  She noted that the names on the Town’s assessing computer were the source that the Planning Department used.  Don Sipe asked if he could have a copy of the correct names which he would provide to Harry Murray, LLS.
        The Chairman stated that the Septic Approval and Food Service License had been obtained.  Don Sipe stated that the Septic Approval was on the Site Plan.  James Nordstrom clarified that the revised Site Plan would supercede the one currently on file.  The Coordinator replied that was correct.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Revised Site Plan of Donald R. Sipe, New   Boston Pizza, Mont Vernon Road, subject to the correction to abutters names for Tax     Map/Lot #’s 8/108 and 8/69 and submission of a revised Site Plan to the Planning        Department.  Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        Don Sipe stated that the Building Inspector had already given his approval of the plan.

4.      Driveway Permit Application for Randy Sandford, Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot # 6/41-3, for the Board’s action.

        Randy Sandford was present for this item.  He stated that he purchased the lot from Thibeault Corporation and wished to construct his residence on it.  The Chairman asked if this lot was in an approved grandfathered subdivision.  The Coordinator replied that the lots were grandfathered.  Randy Sandford noted that the Driveway Permit Application for Lot #6/41-3 was based on his septic design.  The Chairman commented that the driveway plans of Thibeault Corporation which included this lot were received by the Board on January 6, 2006.  Randy Sandford stated that Thibeault did not own this lot.  He added that his driveway plan showed no impacts to an existing hill ahead of his lot.  James Nordstrom thought that Mr. Sandford’s driveway design worked better that the one erroneously included on Thibeault Corporation’s submittal and created a nice buffer between the lots.  The Coordinator asked where the guardrail on Byam Road ended in conjunction with Lot #6/41-3.  Randy Sandford replied that it ended right before his lot.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application # 05-059, for a    proposed driveway, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway shall have two inches (2”) of  winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road;  the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum; and, the driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees.  Dave      Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        Randy Sandford asked if he should consult with the Road Agent regarding the culvert sizing required under the driveway.  The Coordinator replied that he should.  James Nordstrom nioed that the minimum standard size was 12” which was what the Road Agent was likely to recommend.   

        The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the plans previously noted earlier on the Miscellaneous Business agenda.
        
        At 10:40 p.m. Travis Daniels MOVED to adjourn.  James Nordstrom seconded the    motion and it PASSED unanimously.
        
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O'Brien
Recording Clerk                                         Minutes Approved: