Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 02/14/2006
Planning Board Minutes of February 14, 2006

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan.  Present were regular members, Travis Daniels, Bob Furey; ex-officio Dave Woodbury; and, alternates Don Duhaime and Douglas Hill.  Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.    
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Pat Panciocco, Esq., Rick Martin, Bob Todd, LLS, Pat Golding, Kim Burkhamer, Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, Tom Clapp, Mike Ryan, Esq., Steve Hunt, Jeff Fillmore, Albert LaChance, Ray Shea, LLS, Dave Plantier, Linda Pothier, Michael Pare, Mitch Larochelle, and Frank and Susan Woodward.

RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC.        
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/29 & 5/29-1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were Pat Panciocco, Esq., Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, Bob Todd, LLS, and the applicant Rick Martin.  Abutters and interested parties present were Pat Golding, Kim Burkhamer, Steve Hunt, Mike Ryan Esq., and Tom Clapp.
        Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that the applicant’s plan originated as a cluster design in late 2004 and for reasons she was not aware of, later became a conventional design.  She noted that in November, 2004, the Board had expressed their concern regarding the subdivision’s proposed connection to Beard Road and that where a primary and temporary entrance had been presented they preferred a Class V connection.  Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that the applicant then designed the road plans based on that preference and redeveloped what was feasible in an existing right-of-way.  She noted that although the Board had reservations they stated that they were willing to work with the applicant.  Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that the checklist items were satisfied on the application which was accepted as complete in October, 2005, and that discussions regarding Beard Road improvements continued as the applicant was still unclear as to what would be required according to the Subdivision Regulations.  She added that the applicant had met with the Selectmen and Road Committee one week prior and that although they were still unsure what AASHTO standards were suitable it had become evident that unless land could be acquired from abutters to facilitate road improvements the sight distance requirement of 250’ from the second proposed entrance was not attainable.  Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that the applicant had no clear answers on the matter tonight and that it remained an outstanding issue.  
        Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that the applicant, in light of the status of the plan, wished to present an alternative conceptual plan to the Board this evening.  She noted phrasing in the Subdivision Regulations which presented an exception and read: “If the subdivider has presented information and data to the Board, showing that the connection to an existing town road by any method is not possible, and upon confirmation of the facts by the consulting engineer of the Town, if appropriate, at that time only will the Board consider the construction of a non-connecting public right-of-way (loop or cul-de-sac road) within said subdivision."  Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that she understood this phrasing to mean that a cul-de-sac design could be considered by the Board and conceptual plan B with less lots although it was not a formal submission.  Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, added that without acquisition of some abutting property they could not meet sight distance requirements, therefore, that was the first option and plan B was the second which he noted still needed Bob Todd, LLS’s, review for Steep Slopes and wetlands.  He further added that the same test pits were used for plan B and if additional land could not be acquired then the second entrance shown could not exist leaving the first entrance and 12 new lots in addition to two existing.  Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, explained that the cul-de-sac would be approximately 2,900’ in length and realigned to create conforming lots off it.  He noted another option which he had submitted in a letter to the Board which suggested that a one way secondary access be included which would eliminate the sight distance issues onto Beard Road.  Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, stated that they were looking for the Board’s input and wished to know if this alternative design was worth pursuing along with a one way access option.  The Chairman asked Douglas Hill, for reference purposes, the length of the cul-de-sac on the Kritzon property subdivision.  Douglas Hill replied that it was approximately 2,900’.  Dave Woodbury stated that he was skeptical of any one way road proposed off Beard Road as there would be no way to police it and people would probably use it as a two way road anyway.  He added that he was more favorable of the cul-de-sac option and was unsure of how the applicant’s acquisition pursuits were progressing and if that was their higher preference or estimation.  The Chairman could not think of any reason why the Board would change their prior decision over not wanting a one way access.  Bob Furey agreed.  
        Don Duhaime asked if the applicant was proposing single family homes for conceptual plan B.  Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the design was considered conventional although a lot owner would have the right to opt for a duplex if they chose.  The Chairman agreed that this was in line with what the Subdivision Regulations dictated.  Dave Woodbury asked if the Board should assume that these lots would have duplexes.  The Chairman replied that was the case.  Interested party, Steve Hunt asked if a gated secondary access for emergency vehicles was an option.  Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, recalled that such an idea was proposed early on in the application process.  The Chairman stated that a gated access would cause more problems than it would solve.
        The Chairman noted that another applicant’s plan with a similar length cul-de-sac was recommended to have underground utilities and sprinklers along with a cisterns.  Rick Martin replied that all these items were proposed on his plan.  Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, noted the location of a proposed cistern on the plan.  The Chairman asked the maximum slope on the proposed road.  Rick Martin replied that, as before, nothing over 8% was proposed.  Bob Furey asked if the open space area changed with plan B.  Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, replied that it would change slightly because of the new layout, however, he still needed to run calculations for that.  Rick Martin felt that the fewer lots would be larger and that more open space would also result.  The Chairman asked if the applicant would propose any more of the site to subdivide.  Rick Martin replied that if a waiver on the cul-de-sac length was granted he might opt for two more lots at the most.  The Chairman felt that the plan B design posed a compelling reason for justifying the 2,900’ length.
        Douglas Hill asked if Lot #14 shown on the plan would have a separate driveway that entered off Beard Road.  Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, replied that the driveway would travel through a 50’ right-of-way and if the Board approved a shared entrance two more lots could be obtained.  Douglas Hill asked if the cul-de-sac was traditional or a looped design.  Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, replied that it was expanded to gain more frontage for lots off it, therefore, it was 250’ in diameter.  The Chairman did not think there was any reason to access Lot #14 off the cul-de-sac and Lot #12 off Lot #14’s driveway entrance.  Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, agreed as wide cuts and fills would be required for that scenario.  The Chairman thought that conceptual plan B was more palatable that the original plan.  He asked if the applicant could prove that Lot #12 could sustain its own driveway.  Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, replied that this could be done.  The Chairman stated that he would have no issue with Lot #’s 12 and 14 having a shared driveway if Lot #12 could prove that it could sustain a driveway through its frontage.  He added that if more backlots were introduced he would be skeptical as they would further tax a long cul-de-sac.  The Chairman noted that as presented this cul-de-sac would not be heavily utilized and, therefore, did not cause an issue.  Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that one more lot would be the maximum proposed.  The Chairman clarified that, in his opinion, the intensity of use proposed was suitable for the road presented.
        Don Duhaime asked how sight distance onto Beard Road from the driveways for Lot #’s 12 and 14 would be addressed.  The Chairman replied that sight distance in respect to a road entrance had been considered, however, the alternative of a driveway would incorporate more relaxed standards.  Don Duhaime noted that the draft of the Driveway Regulations required that a minimum sight distance be met.  Douglas Hill asked if 200’ of sight distance was available from the driveways for Lot #’s 12 and 14.  Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, replied that he would check on this measure.  Don Duhaime stated that he did not want the applicant misled if a sight distance issue from these driveways was found to still be present.  The Chairman agreed.  Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, thought that shaving Beard Road in that general area might be required to get proper sight distance.   
        Douglas Hill asked if the applicant had considered a cluster design option.  Rick Martin replied that a cluster design was originally considered but due to some technicalities was found to be unfeasible.  Bob Todd, LLS, clarified that the original cluster design could not incorporate duplexes.  He added that single family homes could yield more lots.  Douglas Hill pointed out that a cluster design could alleviate some frontage issues although he understood it would involve more engineering costs to redesign the plan.
        Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that the main question this evening was whether the Board would entertain the cul-de-sac design as a default possibility if the secondary access as shown on the original plan could not be achieved.  The Chairman reiterated that the intensity of use proposed for plan B’s design was the main consideration and that he would be in favor of it if the driveways for Lot #’s 12 and 14 could be proved.  Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that the applicant was not looking for a binding vote but rather a general consensus from the Board.  The Chairman remarked that he liked the alternative plan.  Bob Furey agreed and noted that he also had never been favorable of the one way entrance proposed on the earlier plan.  Douglas Hill commented that it seemed that the road proposed in the conceptual plan could be shortened to half the distance while still allowing 15 lots and adequate frontages.  Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, replied that the issue in that scenario would be that a smaller corridor would exist between the existing wetlands and the property line.  Rick Martin noted that he had intentionally purchased more property to negotiate wetlands.  Dave Woodbury noted that he favored the cul-de-sac design as he mentioned earlier.  Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that the Board’s comments had been helpful and that the applicant first needed to see through his pursuit of gaining AASHTO requirements for the secondary access proposed on the initial plan and if that was not possible then the second plan could be considered.  The Chairman thought that the bigger issue was not gaining more property but doing the actual road improvements that would be required for Beard Road.  Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that the applicant realized that he would be responsible for impacts created by the subdivision and his fair contributions, etc.  She added that details could be addressed if things came together for the initial plan.  The Chairman stated that he had heard references to the effect that it may be impossible to get Beard Road up to standards that would be required of a 20 lot subdivision constructed off it.  Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, replied that he took exception to such comments as he felt that as soon as Beard Road was paved to the entrance of the proposed subdivision conditions would be greatly improved.
        Dave Woodbury asked how the application should proceed and if the applicant wished to withdraw and resubmit or adjourn to another date.  Pat Panciocco, Esq., replied that the applicant would prefer to adjourn the application until more detailed information on the direction of the plan was available.  She added that they did not want to waste the Board’s time with an option that may never come to fruition.  Rick Martin thought that he should have a better idea in the next two weeks as to which plan would be pursued and that he was awaiting two amended permits from the State.  Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that the applicant was willing to have the Board’s deadline for action extended 90 days.
        Abutter Tom Clapp stated that he thought the maximum cul-de-sac length allowed was 1,000’.  Rick Martin noted that another application was recently had its cul-de-sac length waived for 2,925’.  The Chairman explained that the Board considered waivers in such scenarios if the cul-de-sac was acceptable to the Fire Department who generally recommended underground utilities and sprinklers for those lengths.  Pat Golding stated that the applicant criticized the Board for dragging their feet on this application, however, it was the indecision of the applicant that was causing his own delays.  Pat Panciocco, Esq., replied that the applicant had not meant to give that impression and that it was more the fact that he was unclear on which way to go with the plan given the Subdivision Regulations, AASHTO requirements, etc.  The Chairman stated that the Board always sought to be upfront with applicants regarding their plans.  He added that in certain cases it had been determined that good subdivisions required longer than average cul-de-sacs.

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 March 28, 2006 at 7:45 p.m. and to extend the                   Board’s deadline for action to May 31, 2006.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it      PASSED unanimously.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 2006

1.      Approval of minutes of January 10, 2006, with or without changes, distributed at the    January 24, 2006, meeting. (No Copies)

        Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the minutes of January 10, 2006, as written.     Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

2.      Endorsement of a Site Plan for Freedom Crossing, LLC, (New Boston Pizza), Mont  Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/110, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

        Because multiple signature sheets were required the Chairman stated that the above noted Site Plan would be endorsed at the end of the meeting.

3.      Driveway Permit Application for Donald Desruisseaux, Lyndeborough Road, Tax     Map/Lot #10/74-1, for the Chairman’s signature. 

        The Chairman signed the above noted Driveway Permit Application.

4.      Driveway Permit Application for Jeffrey and Jaqueline Fillmore, 49 Hopkins Road, Tax    Map/Lot #13/16-3, for the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to meeting)

        Jeff Fillmore was present in the audience for this item.  No members of the Board had driven by the site.  The Chairman asked if the Road Agent had signed off on the application.  The Coordinator replied that as of yet he had not.  Jeff Fillmore stated that two driveways were approved for Lot 13/16-2 and 13/16-3 at the time of the original subdivision of the site and would be straight driveways.  He added that the proposal was to have the driveway shared for approximately 425’ on Lot #13/16-2 before it split.  The Coordinator noted that easements were generally considered when that length was involved.  The Chairman asked Jeff Fillmore why he chose to construct the driveway in that manner.  Jeff Fillmore replied that he wanted only one curb cut off the main road and did not want two driveways running parallel to each other with no trees in between them.  The Chairman stated that he did not think that such a design would be aesthetically unpleasing and noted that he owned two lots with parallel driveways which he found easier to maintain.  He asked what party was involved with the subdivided lot.  Jeff Fillmore replied that he owned both lots and that nothing was currently built on them but that he planned to build single family homes on each in the future.  He added that he might possibly live on one of the lots.  Bob Furey asked if the lots were both backlots.  Jeff Fillmore replied that they were.  The Chairman asked Jeff Fillmore which lot he planned to develop first.  Jeff Fillmore replied that he would likely develop Lot #13/16-2.  Douglas Hill noted that the shared portion of the driveway should be wider than the standard for single driveways, probably at least 14 feet.
        Bob Furey asked if they were any wetlands on the site.  Jeff Fillmore replied that they were 800-900’ back on Lot #13/16-3.  The Chairman noted that the Driveway Permit Application met most of the criteria required as the shared option reduced curb cuts and each lot was capable of supporting its own driveway.  Dave Woodbury did not have an issue with any aspect of the driveway design and stated that he would be inclined to approve it.  The Chairman stated that he did not personally like the driveway design but that it did meet the criteria.  He asked if a driveway constructed in this manner had ever been denied by the Board before.  The Coordinator replied that with the proper legal documents such a scenario had not occurred.  She noted that this Driveway Permit Application was similar to the Lyons Driveway Permit Application on Laurel Lane.
        The Chairman stated that Jeff Fillmore should submit easement language for the Driveway Permit Application and that if he used a standard template legal review would not be required at his expense.  He added that, in his opinion, Jeff Fillmore should apply for a single driveway permit, use that driveway for construction on the site and construct another driveway when he sold the house on the other lot instead of encumbering one lot with an easement.  The Chairman explained that in this way if there were issues with the potential buyer they could then put their own driveway in.  

5.      Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Swanson Road, Tax         Map/Lot #6/32-30, for the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to meeting)   

        Douglas Hill asked if the driveway design had been superimposed onto the septic design for the lot.  The Coordinator replied that it looked that way.  The Chairman noted that 10% grades were suggested for the driveway and that he would like to see a more specific design submitted followed by an As-Built post construction.

This will be an informational session with Albert LaChance, to discuss a potential subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #2/112-2, Middle Branch Road and NH Route 77.

        Present for this informational session were Bob Todd, LLS, and Albert and Carol LaChance.  An interested party was Steve Hunt.
        Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the site was a 45 acre lot bounded by Middle Branch Road to the north and NH Route 77 to the east.  He added that the LaChances resided on a 14 acre lot to the west of the site which he noted on the plan and that since the last meeting with the Board they had completed the boundary survey, aerial mapping, test pits and had begun State
permitting procedures.  Bob Todd, LLS, noted that in observing the interspersion of forested wetlands the largest flow was found to come from the south, running parallel along NH Route 77 and crossing in a north easterly direction to the Piscataquog River.  He further noted that additional flow from Town forest lands ran through the site to Middle Branch Road, into several existing culverts and finally to the Piscataquog River.  Bob Todd, LLS, stated that Steep Slopes over 25% on the site were moderate and a fair amount were greater than 15%.  He added that there were some cultural resources on the site, namely, old foundations researched to have belonged to the Joshua Woodbury homestead of the early 1800’s.
        In using the algorithm provided in the Cluster Ordinance Bob Todd, LLS, explained that lots netted were 15 for the site and by overlaying the conventional formula 9 lots and two clusters resulted.  He noted that the road name of Pumpkin Lane was applied for with the Selectmen in honor of the late Charlie Houghton who formerly owned the property and whose prize winning pumpkin of 2003 was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records.  Dave Woodbury noted that the Selectmen had approved Pumpkin Lane at their meeting one night prior.  Bob Todd, LLS, stated that three lots were proposed off Lull Road at the end of the Town maintained portion off the gravel surface.  He noted that each lot could support its own driveway, however, he would like the Board to consider the option for combining some into common driveways which he noted on the plan.  Bob Todd, LLS, further noted that setback lines for the clusters were illustrated by red lines on the plan.
        Bob Todd, LLS, stated that each lot owner would own 1/9th interest in the open space proposed on the site which would total 27 acres and that its usage would be governed by a Declaration of Covenants.  He noted that the applicant sought clarification by the Board as to whether the proposed road was allowed to be located within the 100’ buffer.  The Chairman stated that he did not like the shared driveway proposed to serve three lots on the plan.  He also referred to Section 401.5F on page 39 of the Zoning Ordinance which read: “No dwelling, accessory structure, collector or service road or parking area shall be permitted within the designated buffer areas”.  Dave Woodbury stated that he did not see the necessity other than for aesthetics to enter the buffer.  Albert LaChance asked if removing the curve on the proposed road was an alternative.  Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the purpose of having the curve in the road design was to better facilitate the approach to some existing slopes.  Bob Furey asked if the tangent difference between the reverse curves had been considered.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he did not think this would be a factor on a road proposed with 15 m.p.h. speeds that was a small dead end subdivision and that waivers to tangent curves had been granted in the past with no safety issues resulting.  Dave Woodbury noted that the standard speed limit for Class V Town roads was 35 m.p.h.  Bob Todd, LLS, did not think that from a practical standpoint speed over 15 m.p.h. would result on the proposed road.  The Chairman asked the length of the proposed cul-de-sac.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the length was 600’.  He added that the road could be run straight in, however, more cuts and fills would be required.  Dave Woodbury asked if the road as presented would require a variance or a waiver by the Board to be sustained.  Douglas Hill noted that the Zoning Ordinance did say that primary roads were permitted to cross the buffer but did not specify how many times.  Dave Woodbury stated that if the Board interpreted the Ordinance
to allow crossing of the buffer then they should assure consistency in dealing with such issues in the future.  He noted that although he did not see a problem with this scenario, future applications could present issues.  Dave Woodbury asked if this interpretation meant that an access road could run into a 100’ buffer for hundreds of feet.  The Chairman asked what was on the other side of the property boundaries.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that some existing homes were over the boundary lines but mainly forest land.  The Chairman asked if this land was subdividable.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he was unsure but thought that it could be.  The Chairman stated that his interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance was that a road could not be in a buffer zone.  The Coordinator noted that in response to Dave Woodbury’s recent question a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment would be required for the road design as presented.  Albert LaChance asked if such a variance would serve as protection from the precedence effect.  Douglas Hill explained that any applicant with a similar scenario would be required to do the same.  Bob Todd, LLS, stated that by cutting out the curve proposed in the road some loss of economy and efficiency would result due to loss of contours, however, the grade could be cut into the buffer and revegetated.  
        Bob Furey asked if the Covenants governing the open space could be changed by the owner of the Covenant, in this case the applicant.  Albert LaChance replied that he was unsure.  Douglas Hill noted that the Covenants would be registered with the deeds to the lots.  Albert LaChance stated that he planned to establish a Home Owners Association which would oversee the Covenants and that clauses regarding no hunting, trapping or all terrain vehicles would be included.  The Coordinator noted that often developers had Covenants for their subdivisions with sprinkler requirements included and that Town Counsel was very careful to assure that that clause could not be changed unless it came back before the Town.  Albert LaChance noted that all terrain vehicles used the site now and he wanted to put an end to that.  He added that he hoped to have two lots on the site for his daughters in addition to his own and that his primary concern was to protect the land.  Interested party, Steve Hunt thought that the State stipulated hunting was allowed outside of 300’ perimeters of homes and asked if the Covenants suggested who would provide for the maintenance of No Hunting postings.  Albert LaChance replied that he had considered turning this over to the Piscataquog Watershed Association, however if the posting was found to be his responsibility he was agreeable.  Steve Hunt noted that without postings abutters would be unaware of the no hunting clause in the Covenants to this subdivision.  He asked if a portion of the site was in current use if it could be posted.  Douglas Hill replied that it could.  The Coordinator replied that under the cluster regulations the open space could not be put into current use.
         Albert LaChance asked what the requirement was for curb cuts on shared driveways.  The Chairman replied that generally a curb cut did not travel more than 100’ before splitting.  Bob Todd, LLS, noted that he would like to combine at least two lots for shared driveways if possible due to existing wetlands.  Bob Furey asked the sight distance for the road and driveways.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the sight distance exceeded 400’.  Bob Furey asked if there were any vertical curves in the proposed road near the lower three lots on the plan.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this area was flat.
        Douglas Hill asked if there were any issues with fire fighting water supply.  Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the homes would have fire sprinkler systems installed.  The Chairman noted that the Fire Department would most likely recommend a cistern also.  Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the closest cistern was approximately 1,000’ away at Twin Bridge Road.  The Chairman asked if paving the proposed road would be required if it entered off a Class V unpaved road.  Albert LaChance noted that two homes were recently built with the same scenario and their road was not required to be paved.  The Chairman asked who decided such matters.  The Coordinator replied that it was based on the amount of traffic that a subdivision would generate, and would therefore, would need to be investigated.  The Chairman then asked who had paved Lull Road up to the point it was now paved.  The Coordinator replied that Lull Road was a Town road and was either already paved in the 1980’s when surrounding land was subdivided or that developer had paved it.  The Chairman clarified that when the Dodges constructed two duplexes on the road they were still required to bring it up to Class V standards but were not responsible for paving it.  The Coordinator replied that was correct.  The Chairman stated that the Town generally wished to maintain paved roads.  Dave Woodbury noted that the outstanding question became whether the addition of three more houses justified paving or not.  
        Bob Furey referred back to the issue of Pumpkin Lane being shown in the buffer and stated that in reviewing the Zoning Ordinance regarding open space there may be some leeway for the Board to permit minor deviations of open space standards.  It was pointed out that open space and the buffer area were two different things.  The Chairman stated that because this subdivision was proposed off a Class V road which would sustain fairly light impacts as a result there did not seem to be a benefit to paving.  The Coordinator noted that the applicant may wish to check with the Road Agent and she could run the formula for fair share offsite improvements also.

This will be an informational session with Ray Shea, Sandford Survey and Engineering, to discuss a potential consolidation and resubdivision of land owned by David Plantier, Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/71 & 12/82, Bedford Road.

        Present for this discussion were Ray Shea, LLS, and David Plantier.  Also present was interested party Steve Hunt.  Ray Shea, LLS, stated that a subdivision/consolidation of two parcels was being considered by David Plantier, approximately 15.5 acres each which fronted on Bedford Road between Klondike Korner and Christie Road.  He noted the existing house to be on Lot #12/71 with 300’ of frontage and Lot #12/82 to be a vacant backlot with 50’ of frontage.  He explained that the proposal was to consolidate the two lots into one parcel and create a four lot subdivision, therefore, two additional lots.  Ray Shea, LLS, stated that the lot configuration would then include a backlot with the existing house having 18 acres accessed by a 50’ strip, another 5 acre backlot accessed by a 50’ strip, a frontage lot north of that with 2.5 acres and then another 5 acre backlot to the north.  He noted that the existing driveway came in at a southerly access point and crossed wetlands and that Mr. Plantier would like to use that driveway for both backlots which would split at approximately 280’.  Ray Shea, LLS, stated that the lots could support their own driveways, however, by constructing a shared driveway parallel driveways could be avoided and the wetlands would not be disturbed.  The Coordinator asked the sight distance from the driveway.  Ray Shea, LLS, replied that he had not yet checked the sight distance but would do so before a formal application was submitted.  
        Ray Shea, LLS, stated that two wetland impacts of 1,700 s.f. and 400 s.f. were proposed and that the Conservation Commission was waiting to submit their comments until after the Planning Board’s discussion tonight.  Dave Woodbury noted that if single driveways were constructed they would run parallel and 50’ apart from each other.  He asked if this was allowed in the Subdivision Regulations.  Douglas Hill replied that it was allowed if different lots were involved.  David Plantier explained that he was trying to keep as much of the land on the site in current use for his sons and that his wife would be taking the frontage lot upon their divorce while he would sell the northern lot and retain ownership of the remaining two lots which would equal 23 acres.  He added that by having a common driveway environmental damage could be minimized and in the event of a future sale everything would be in.
        The Chairman felt that proposed Lot #12/71-3 appeared to be stacked, because in his opinion, Lot #12/76, behind which the bulk of Lot #12/71-3 was located, appeared to be a backlot itself.  Ray Shea, LLS, replied that although this lot had narrow frontage it was not a backlot.  The Coordinator noted that Lot #76 was probably created pre-Zoning before 200’ frontage was required.  Dave Woodbury thought that the lot configurations were a valid issue that needed to be researched.  Ray Shea, LLS, stated that he would research the history of the lots.  Dave Woodbury noted that research would have to begin with what the Ordinance stated about backlots at the time.  
        Dave Plantier asked what the Board’s recommendations were regarding the common driveway proposal.  Dave Woodbury replied that the Board had established that common driveways were acceptable depending on the length of the curb cut before the split.  The Chairman added that a common curb cut going to a distinct split was more desirable, however, two single driveways running parallel to each other would not be as close as one would think.  Dave Plantier noted that the option of having separate driveways could be put into the terms of the sale of the property in the future.
        Ray Shea, LLS, stated that when two lots were subdivided from Lot #12/71 in the 1970’s the plan notes stipulated that the next lot subdivided would require a cistern.  He asked if in light of the fact that Mr. Plantier was proposing one lot beyond that if fire sprinklers in the homes would satisfy that requirement.  The Chairman replied that the note would need review because in some scenarios money was collected for future cistern installation when lot owners purchased their properties.  Ray Shea, LLS, stated that he would research that item also.  Bob Furey noted that information regarding driveway sight distance should also be gathered for the next meeting.


POTHIER, LINDA & PARE, MICHAEL
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Kennel/Boarding/Riding Stable
Location: 40 Helena Drive
Tax Map/Lot #3/21
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience were the applicants, Linda Pothier and Michael Pare.  No abutters or interested parties were present.
        Linda Pothier stated that at their previous meeting with the Board it was determined that three dogs other than those they owned would be the maximum number allowed for their dog sitting business at one time, however, she recently had minded four dogs for two separate clients and was concerned that scenarios like this could cause an issue with her Site Plan.  The Chairman replied that the business approved by the Board was not for a kennel nor were the applicants operating as a kennel by dog sitting in their home and he could not foresee that abutters would be mindful or disturbed by one extra dog inside the applicant’s home.
        The Board determined that there had been no issues on the recent site walk.  Dave Woodbury asked about the Toad Hill Farms signs that were along the road on route to the applicant’s home.  Linda Pothier replied that they were directional signs more than anything else because Helena Drive became an unmaintained Town road at a certain point which sometimes led visitors and clients to believe they were not traveling in the right direction to their property.
        Michael Pare stated that the Fire Department had recommended a 20 pound extinguisher on site and asked if two 10 pound extinguishers would suffice given the fact that the total weight of a 20 pound unit was closer to 40 when the hardware was considered.  Linda Pothier noted that a heavier extinguisher could fall off the wall in the barn and pose a safety issue.  The Board did not have an issue with two 10 pound extinguishers for the site.
        In response to a question from the Chairman, the Coordinator stated that the sign which advertised the business, hours of operation and the maximum number of dogs allowed on site needed to be added to the plan.  She added that the parking was not delineated on the site as the area was a wide open field.  The Chairman did not feel that parking needed to be delineated as the site was in a barnyard.  The Coordinator noted that the landscape/screening requirement per the Zoning Ordinance did not seem to apply as there was a woods buffer around the site.  The Board agreed.  The Coordinator added that a question still remained regarding Helena Drive’s Class VI road status and access to the business and that she had not been able to locate a release of liability signed by Linda Pothier when she purchased the property from the Cloughs.  The Coordinator further added that she was unsure of the legal aspects of this scenario in the event that emergency vehicles could not access the unmaintained portion of Helena Drive to get to the applicant’s business.  Dave Woodbury asked if such a release would have been recorded with the deed to the property.  The Coordinator replied that the Cloughs had such a release which was recorded.  Dave Woodbury asked if such a release would not have rolled over with the deed at the time the ownership was transferred. The Coordinator replied that the Town now required new forms to be signed upon the sale of property, however, this situation involved an older sale
release.  The Coordinator, however, noted that the bigger issue was whether such a release of liability would be adequate to protect the Pothiers and the Town in the event that an accident occurred while someone was horseback riding on their property and the emergency vehicles could not access the road for some reason.  She pointed out the inherent risks associated with the sport of horseback riding.  Linda Pothier noted that State law realized that horses posed an inherent risk and that it was the riders responsibility to accept that risk.  Douglas Hill wondered if that responsibility included the fact that an ambulance may not be able to get to the site.  The Chairman asked if the “End of Town Maintenance” sign was obvious on Helena Drive as the site was approached.  Linda Pothier replied that it was.  The Chairman felt that the Site Plan should include a requirement that the applicant maintain that sign.  Linda Pothier was agreeable.  The Coordinator noted that a legal check on this issue might be in order.  The Board agreed.  The Chairman added that the applicant needed to make the appropriate changes to the notes section on the Site Plan that were discussed this evening.

        Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn the application of Linda Pothier and Michael     
        Pare, NRSPR, Kennel/Boarding/Riding Stable, Location: 40 Helena Drive, Tax      Map/Lot #3/21, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to February 28, 2006, at 9:30   p.m.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC. & SIZEMORE, MARILYN & RONALD
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/29 & 5/29-1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District & Commercial “Com” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was one of the applicants, Rick Martin.  No abutters or interested parties were present.
        The Coordinator stated that the State Subdivision Approval (SSA) had since been submitted for the application which was withdrawn and resubmitted due to the lack of procedural timing for the SSA submittal at a previous meeting.

        Dave Woodbury MOVED to grant the waivers for three copies of the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, three paper print copies of the soils map, and the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it        PASSED unanimously.

        Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the application of Right Way Builders, Inc., and  Ronald and Marilyn Sizemore, Minor Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/29 & 5/29-1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District and      Commercial “Com” District, as complete.  Bob Furey seconded the motion and it   PASSED unanimously.
        Travis Daniels MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment       Adjustment Plan for Right Way Builders, Inc., and Ronald and Marilyn Sizemore, for      Tax Map/Lot #5/29 & 5/29-1, Beard 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.   Review of Declaration of Condominium by Town Counsel, the cost of said review to be borne by the applicant.
        4.   Submission of executed Declaration of Condominium for recording at the HCRD.
        5.   Submission of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application or recording of the documents at the HCRD.
        The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be March 31, 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.  Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

6a.     A copy of an Email received January 31, 2006, from Roch Larochelle, New Boston Road     Committee, to Nicola Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, Re: Carriage/Susan Road        intersection, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

        This item addressed with 6b.

6b.     A copy of a draft letter dated February 5, 2006, from Roch Larochelle, New Boston Road  Committee, to Nicola Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, Re: Carriage/Susan Road         intersection, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

        Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, and Mitch Larochelle were present in the audience for this item.  The Chairman stated that this issue presented a challenge to the Board as they were essentially being asked to make a decision on something that they were not qualified to do.  He noted that the Board had approved the Carriage Road improvement plan along with the Town Engineer and there had since been conflicting opinions raised firstly by residents on Carriage Road with the support of Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, that not making those improvements was a better safety option in light of the sight distance issues that existed.  The Chairman noted that the Board could not change an approved plan and that it was up to the developer to submit changes to the Board who would then seek the opinion of the Town Engineer and Road Committee if amendments
were to be considered.  He noted that if the applicant decided to improve the road per the approved plan and work with an engineer on site to make adjustments that was their option.
        Dave Woodbury asked if any further comments had been submitted by Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, other than the draft submitted.  The Coordinator replied that the submittal was originally labeled as a draft because of the potentially sensitive nature of the K value issue, however, Roch Larochelle had since decided that it was acceptable to distribute the draft as the Road Committee’s official comments on the matter.  Dave Woodbury added that there was also the sensitive issue of the Road Committee, who were professional engineers by vocation criticizing another engineer’s work.  The Coordinator replied that was also the case.  Dave Woodbury clarified that changes to the plan could be made in the field under the Town Engineer’s supervision.  The Coordinator replied that was correct.  Dave Woodbury asked how the process could then be controlled.  The Chairman replied that in such a case it would be
assumed that some imperfections existed on the plan and subsequent changes during construction might be necessary.  
        Douglas Hill wished to clarify that the Road Committee had recommended that no changes be made to the plan.  The Chairman replied that was correct.  Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, asked if the opinion of a traffic engineer or other PE could be considered.  Bob Furey noted that if the applicant’s engineer, T.F. Moran, was not in agreement to changing the plan in the field then they may not sign off on the As-Builts.  The Chairman agreed and added that any significant changes made would need to be reviewed by the design engineer and be resubmitted to the Board.  Dave Woodbury stated that he was uncomfortable with the thought of disregarding the advice of the Road Committee, however, realized that it would be impractical to keep Carriage Road bonded for an indeterminate amount of time.  He added that he agreed that the sight distance looking left onto Carriage Road from Susan Road was inadequate.
        The Chairman summarized that the Town Engineer, Road Committee and T.F. Moran did not catch the sight distance deficiency initially, therefore, the best choice now was to move forward with the approved plan and let changes occur in the field as needed.  Mitch Larochelle wished to clarify that this deficiency was not intentionally slipped through the cracks and that in his opinion incorporating a stop sign on the road would solve the entire issue, although he was aware this might set an unwanted precedent.  He added that there were many children and residents that walked Carriage Road and this was a concern given the sight distance issues.  He noted that if someone was killed as a result the Town could be assuming a large liability and that this should be considered in their decision.  The Chairman suggested that a plan to fix the intersection sight distance be submitted.  Mitch Larochelle replied that there was no plan to fix that problem because solving one issue would cause another.  Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, clarified that if one inch of the road were altered it would become substandard and that safety would be traded for convenience.  Dave Woodbury asked about the stop sign option.  The Coordinator explained that none of the entities polled had recommended a stop sign.  
        The Chairman asked Mitch Larochelle what time constraints were involved in making this decision.  Mitch Larochelle replied that he had closings on Susan Road in eight to nine weeks.  The Chairman asked Dave Woodbury if the Selectmen had discussed this issue as they ultimately accepted roads in the Town.  Dave Woodbury replied that they had not.  He noted that he was concerned about the factors involved in adding a stop sign versus the improvement work approved on the plan.  Douglas Hill asked if traffic data was available regarding stop signs and what rules applied.  Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that stop signs were not supposed to be used to control or slow speeds however that generally occurred anyway on certain roads.  Dave Woodbury stated that the Selectmen would undertake this issue and discuss the option of a stop sign with the Road Committee.   
  
7.      A copy of a letter received January 31, 2006, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to Nicola      Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, Re: Bond Reduction-Highland Hills, was distributed  for the Board’s review and discussion.

        Travis Daniels MOVED to reduce the bond for Highland Hills per the
        recommendation of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to $115,900.00.  Bob Furey seconded the         motion and it PASSED unanimously.       

8.      A copy of notes from the Affordable Housing & Workforce Housing: Challenges &   Barriers, February 3, 2006, PSNH-Energy Park, Manchester, was distributed for the       Board’s information.

9.      A copy of housing statistics from the Manchester Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.,   for the Board’s information.

10.     A copy of a letter received February 6, 2006, from PSNH, to Mr. Peter Hogan, Planning Board Chairman, Re: Transmission Line Easements, Procedures and Survey    Requirements, was distributed for the Board’s information. (document available for      viewing in office)

11a.    A copy of a faxed letter received February 02, 2006, from Richard Colarusso, to New     Boston Planning Board, Re: Meeting of January 24, 2006, was distributed for the Board’s information.

11b.    A copy of a letter dated February 6, 2006, from Nicola Strong, Planning Board   Coordinator, to Richard Colarusso, Re: response to letter of February 2, 2006, was      distributed for the Board’s information.

12.     Daily Road inspection reports dated, January 6th, 9th, 12th, and 13th of 2006, from     Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Highland Hills, was distributed for the Board’s information.

13.     Daily Road inspection reports dated January 3rd and 10th of 2006, from Dufresne-Henry,  Re: Hutchinson Lane, was distributed for the Board’s information.

14.     Daily Road inspection report dated January 4th of 2006, from Dufresne-Henry, Re:        Daylily Lane, was distributed for the Board’s information.

15.     Read File: Workshop Notice, Monday, March 20, 2006, 7:00 p.m., UNH Cooperative Extension Office, Re: Current Use Tax Rules.     

16.     Read File: Article from EPA, Re: Stormwater Structures & Mosquitoes.

17.     The minutes of January 24, 2006, were distributed for approval at the meeting of        February 28, 2006, with or without changes.

18.     A copy of a memorandum dated February 10, 2006, from Nicola Strong, Planning
        Coordinator, to the Board and Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

        The Coordinator explained that the above noted memorandum should have been coupled with the discussions on item #’s 6a and 6b this evening regarding Carriage road.

19.     A copy of a memorandum dated February 6, 2006, from the Office of Energy and    Planning, to the Board, Re: 13th Spring Planning Conference, was distributed for the    Board’s information.
        The Coordinator stated that anyone interested in attending should let her know as soon as possible.

20.     Frank and Susan Woodward were present in the audience and stated that they had misinterpreted item #14 (Daily Road Inspection report on Daylily Lane) to involve a Board discussion regarding the road’s construction rather than a standard procedural report.  Frank Woodward asked if a new plan would be submitted to the Board that would reflect the substantial deviations made in the field.  The Chairman replied that such changes would likely be contained in an As-Built Plan which would be submitted when the road was complete.  He added that it was unfortunate that the rural character requirement approved by the Board had not been fulfilled on the plan by the Road Agent.  Susan Woodward noted that the new road seemed to have issues with runoff because land over one boundary of the plan had experienced flooding.  She added that there were steep drop offs in certain shoulder areas.  Frank Woodward stated that a great number of trees had been removed as a result of the road’s construction.  The Chairman wondered what could be done at this point in the process.  The Coordinator suggested that it would be more productive to plan a strategy to address such issues at a future meeting.  The Board agreed.

        At 10:35 p.m. Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn.  Travis Daniels seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O'Brien
Recording Clerk                                         Minutes Approved: