Planning Board Minutes February 28, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, 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 was Dave Walker, PE, Cynthia Wilson, Brian Pratt, Dana Moody, Timothy Watson, Jim Beaumont, Les Clark, Ken Brucker, Matt Haddad, Adam Drew, Linda Pothier and Michael Pare.
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board as his application was up first.
DOUGLAS HILL CONSTRUCTION, LLC
Work Session/Design Review
Major Subdivision/24 Lots
Location: Francestown Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/16
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Dave Walker, PE, of Bedford Design Consultants and the applicant Douglas Hill. An interested party present was Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission.
Dave Walker, PE, stated that since the last meeting a site walk had been held with members of the Board and Conservation Commission which addressed sight distance from the intersection of NH Route 136, viewing of wetlands, culvert interstationing, the proposed cul-de-sac and open space. He added that comments received based on the Planning Department’s review were in the process of being addressed by the applicant. The Chairman asked Cynthia Wilson if the Conservation Commission had any comments regarding the site walk. Cynthia Wilson replied that she and Burr Tupper of the Conservation Commission had attended the site walk and appreciated the time spent by the applicant and engineer in explaining the site details to them in layman’s terms.
She noted that the Conservation Commission had not met since the time of the site walk, however, would be meeting Thursday, March 2, 2006, after which time their comments would be made available. Cynthia Wilson asked the applicant if a copy of the Dredge and Fill Permit had been submitted to Betsey Dodge of the Conservation Commission. Douglas Hill replied that this had been submitted approximately 10 days prior. Dave Walker, PE, asked it would be beneficial if he and the applicant attended the Conservation Commission’s next meeting. Cynthia Wilson replied that because she and Burr Tupper had attended the site walk they had the appropriate information to provide to the Commission and the applicant’s attendance was not warranted.
Dave Woodbury wished to discuss the topic of extra long cul-de-sac proposals and noted that although the lengthy cul-de-sac proposed for the applicant’s plan did not appear to present problems, other recent proposals in other applications posed issues and he would like to review the criteria needed in order for the Board to be able to grant a waiver to the 1,000’ maximum length stipulated in the Subdivision Regulations. He asked if the impossibility of constructing a looped road for a subdivision was one such criteria. Douglas Hill stated that the reason he had
proposed a cul-de-sac road was due to the cluster design and the goal of keeping open space on the site. He added that with a conventional design for this site that goal would have been less attainable. Dave Woodbury asked if, in general terms, this meant that long cul-de-sacs were more compatible with cluster developments. The Chairman thought that it seemed that cul-de-sac lengths were dictated by a cluster development’s design which dealt with smaller tracts of land which all lots should be located directly off of. He noted that another current application involving land previously owned by the Houghton family had an odd cluster design. Dave Woodbury stated that he wanted to avoid situations going forward where he was faced with granting waivers as a Board member to lengthy
cul-de-sacs without being certain of the criteria he should follow. The Coordinator explained that Section X-A of the Subdivision Regulations discussed the maximum length allowed for cul-de-sacs in the Town, however, granting a waiver to that length was up to the Board’s discretion and there were no written criteria involved. She added that such discretion would be supported by the input of other applicable Town entities such as the Fire Wards, Road Agent and Police Chief.
James Nordstrom pointed out that the applicant had presented a conventional layout for his site with a looped road that would have entailed extreme measures of land reshaping in respect to the open space now proposed with the cluster design. Dave Woodbury added that the configurations of Steep Slopes on the site presented challenges for a conventional design also. Dave Walker, PE, noted that the road that would need to be constructed to support a conventional design would serve no purpose other than cutting through the open space. The Chairman stated that what sold him on the cluster design had nothing to do with the excessive cost a looped road would have demanded but rather how the rural character of the entire area would have been decimated compared to
the cluster design option which would make the proposed subdivision nearly invisible and preserve character. He added that covenants that would aim for the restoration of the existing house and barn on the site along with the valuable open space being proposed was also a selling point.
Dave Woodbury asked if the applicant had considered a road name. Douglas Hill replied that he had not given the matter much thought and would leave that up to the Town, however, he did not like Kritzon after the original property owners as he felt it was difficult to spell and pronounce. Bob Furey stated that he had not been able to attend the site walk and asked if the sight distance from the entrance of the proposed road could be reviewed. Dave Walker, PE, replied that driveway permits had been submitted to NH DOT who asked that the pavement flares be widened at the intersection of the proposed road and NH Route 136 to accommodate the turning radii for tractor trailers. He noted that this request was currently being addressed. Dave Walker, PE,
added that the sight distance looking south onto NH Route 136 was the most critical area and that they proposed to cut some banking and construct a retaining wall with ditches and grading. Bob Furey did not feel that widening road flares was a unique request and should be something the Board considered in other applications. He asked if the mailboxes for the proposed subdivision would be at each home or at the entrance to the road. Douglas Hill replied that they would be within the subdivision. He noted that in regard to the open space status each
lot owner would have a 1/24th ownership of the open space stated in the Declaration of
Covenants and there would be protective covenants for the lot which contained the Kritzon house and barn. Cynthia Wilson stated that the applicant may wish to have a third party oversee adherence to those covenants and that because the PWA (Piscataquog Watershed Association) was in the process of acquiring property north west of the site they might be willing to watch over this easement also. She recalled a scenario involving property owned by the Dupuis family which could not be subdivided as planned because an abutter stepped forward and recalled a covenant placed on the land many years prior that prevented the intended small scale lot configurations they proposed.
The Chairman asked the applicant what items he was waiting for to complete his application. Dave Walker, PE, replied that they were waiting for Site Specific and had also submitted for wetlands and State Subdivision Approval. Dave Woodbury stated that the Road Committee had provided their analysis of this road proposal to the Coordinator and asked the applicant if he saw any issues or had different opinions. Douglas Hill replied that he had not thoroughly reviewed the Road Committee’s comments, however, did not think that there appeared to be any issues. Dave Walker, PE, wished to clarify that when all permits had been received the applicant could then file a formal application with the Board and that when that application was accepted as
complete the plan could be submitted to the Town Engineer for their review and comments. The Chairman replied that was correct. He added that the applicant may want to fully review the Road Committee’s comments before the application was filed so that they would be aware of any items that may be of issue before the plan went to the Town Engineer. Douglas Hill replied that this would be done.
Bob Furey asked if fire fighting water supply had been discussed at the site walk. Douglas Hill replied that he would be proposing a cistern for the site. Bob Furey asked Douglas Hill would also propose fire sprinkler systems for the homes as he was aware that the Fire Department had recommended both measures. Douglas Hill replied that he would propose the cistern only. Dave Walker, PE, noted the location of the proposed cistern on the design plan. The Chairman asked if the cistern proposed would be the standard 30,000 gallon fiberglass model. Douglas Hill replied that was correct.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she had any outstanding issues to discuss. The Coordinator replied that she did not. James Nordstrom stated that he considered the fire fighting water supply proposal an unresolved issue that could be addressed with the final application. The Chairman noted that only in rare circumstances had the Fire Wards recommended cisterns and fire sprinklers for a subdivision and that it had always been the Fire Ward’s stance that fire fighting water supply was the more important mechanism which was what the applicant was proposing. He added that he would personally be accepting of the application if it proposed only a cistern. James Nordstrom noted that the way he interpreted the regulations was that if an
applicant proposed a cistern fire sprinklers were not needed, however if an applicant proposed fire sprinklers a cistern(s) may still be required. Douglas Hill pointed out that the upfront cost of a cistern exceeded the cost of installing fire sprinklers in the homes. He added that he did not personally have confidence in the effectiveness of fire sprinklers especially in the event of power
outages and that the aesthetics were displeasing along with the risk that a blowout in one or more
heads could cause considerable water damage to a home. Douglas Hill further added that it would be beneficial to install a cistern in the proposed subdivision as more water supply was needed in that area of Town.
James Nordstrom MOVED to conditionally approve the concept of the preliminary subdivision plan of Douglas Hill Construction, LLC, Major Subdivision, 24 Lots, Location: Francestown Road, Tax Map/Lot# 5/16, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District. Conditional approval of the preliminary plan shall be valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of such conditional approval, at which time it shall become null and void, unless the condition has been performed or met, or unless extended in writing by the Board. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill reclaimed his seat on the Board.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 28, 2006
1. The minutes of February 14, 2006, were distributed for approval at the meeting of March 28, 2006, with or without changes.
2. Approval of minutes of January 24, 2006, with or without changes, distributed at the February 14, 2006, meeting. (No Copies)
Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the minutes of January 24, 2006, as written. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Endorsement of a Site Review Agreement for Rick Martin of Right Way Builders, Inc., Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/29, Condex, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman endorsed the above noted Site Review Agreement.
4. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Donald Desruisseaux, Tax Map/Lot #10/74, Lyndeborough Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
Because multiple signature sheets were required the Chairman stated that the above noted Subdivision would be endorsed at the end of the meeting.
5. Schedule a compliance site walk for Bill Matheson, Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/116-2, farm and garden tractor sales and service facility.
A compliance site walk was scheduled for Saturday, March 11, 2006, at 8:30 a.m.
MOODY, DANA & McKENZIE, AARON
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/3 Lots
Location: Clark Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #8/122
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Brian Pratt of
True Engineering and the applicant Dana Moody. An interested party was Cynthia Wilson of the Conservation Commission.
Brian Pratt submitted revised plans to the Board which he explained were based on input received at the recently held site walk and from the Planning Department’s review of the original plan. Cynthia Wilson requested a small set of plans to follow along with tonight’s discussion and a larger set that could be brought to the next Conservation Commission meeting. Brian Pratt provided these sets to Cynthia Wilson. He noted that four additional sheets had been added to the plan with two being site plans for each lot and the remaining sheets detailing erosion control and drainage details. Brian Pratt added that he had prepared preliminary drainage analysis sets for the plan.
The Chairman stated that there had been some confusion as to whether the driveway permit for Lot #8/122-1 was suspended. Brian Pratt thought that sight distance from that lot was in question and asked if it was acceptable to use 200’ as the measure of minimum sight distance. The Chairman replied that 200’ was the standard measure used. Brian Pratt stated that 200’ worked on paper from the proposed location of the driveway although some small trees might need to be removed. Bob Furey asked about the flood plain boundary line on the plan. Brian Pratt replied that this lot was “Zone X” and the plan showed the 100 year flood plain. Douglas Hill asked if the sight distance for the driveway on Lot #8/122-1 had been
physically confirmed on site. Brian Pratt replied that it was not physically checked.
Brian Pratt noted that onsite grading away from the house on Lot #8/122-2 was 3:1 but they had enough room to grade to 4:1 or 5:1 if they needed to. Douglas Hill then asked the size of the footprint for the house that would be constructed on the proposed Lot #8/122-2 and if it would have a garage. Brian Pratt replied that the size proposed was 33’ X 36’ and that garages were not planned although there would be room to do garages under the main floor of the homes. Douglas Hill thought the box was small for a house with a garage. Brian Pratt said there would be room to which Douglas Hill commented that a garage under might work although there may be water in the garage. Brian Pratt noted that foundation drains had been included on the
plan. James Nordstrom asked why the well radii on the plan measured 100’. Brian Pratt replied that although 75’ was the minimum he preferred to be conservative and show 100’. James Nordstrom asked if these homes would be considered for duplexes. Brian Pratt replied that the applicant was not that far along in his planning and was seeking to first get the subdivision approved. He clarified that duplexes were allowed per the Zoning Regulations. James Nordstrom replied that was correct. Dana Moody noted that the footprints were based on duplex plans. Brian Pratt explained that the applicant wished to leave his options open in that regard. Douglas Hill asked if there were Driveway Regulations specific to duplexes because
there could be parking issues. James Nordstrom replied there were not. Brian Pratt noted that there was room for six or seven cars to park in the proposed driveways for the lots. Douglas Hill asked if a wetland crossing was noted on the plan requiring a dredge and fill or if this was a culvert. Brian Pratt replied that this was a culvert and explained that he preferred to use 15” culverts over the standard 12”. Dana Moody stated that this was added per a request at the site walk. Bob Furey asked if the layout of the drainage pattern for the site could be reviewed. Brian Pratt noted an existing swamp in the middle of the site and two other small wetland pockets. He also noted the location of an existing pond that was situated between the proposed and existing lots
which ran to the swamp. Brian Pratt further noted that the drainage analysis for the plan contained calculations and short descriptions which detailed the runoff of pre and post-development netting a slight increase.
Brian Pratt stated that at the previous meeting he had requested a waiver to the requirement for stone bounds monumentation in favor of predefined drill holes in an existing stone wall on the site. He noted that other alternatives to that waiver would be to move the boundary line to another point where the stone wall was not as prevalent or dig up the stone wall. The Chairman stated that waivers to monumentation were not uncommon in applications with such circumstances. Dave Woodbury asked for an explanation of the sight distance calculation shown on the plan. Brian Pratt noted the line of sight as being calculated from the centerline of the road and perceived from the driveway entrances. Dave Woodbury was unsure of the way in which the sight
line was drawn as it suggested that a car approaching from 200 feet away would be in a visual shadow at an existing curve on Clark Hill Road. Brian Pratt agreed that the centerline should have been moved over slightly on the plan. James Nordstrom noted that a defined topographic feature in the area of the site could cause a sight distance issue. Dana Moody replied that if this feature related to the parcel to the north then there was an existing Driveway Permit for it. The Chairman clarified that the Planning Department’s research indicated that when the driveway permit was initially applied for there were some issues with the installation and the Town had seemed to consider the Driveway Permit suspended. Brian Pratt stated that there would be no problem in shooting the sight distance on site. Dave Woodbury stated that if the sight distance did not work out the Board could be in the position of having to accept an unsafe condition and he
would think that Town Counsel’s opinion regarding the nature of any grandfathering of the Driveway Permit would be required. The Chairman noted that shooting sight distance on a proposed driveway was a requirement for a Driveway Permit.
The Chairman stated that he thought it likely that the Conservation Commission would have many of their own comments forthcoming. Cynthia Wilson stated that she would be speaking to the Conservation Commission on this upcoming Thursday, March 2, 2006, and that if the applicants would like to be included on their agenda to speak they should contact Betsey Dodge. She added that she could not recommend to the Conservation Commission at this point that either of the lots proposed were suitable for construction. Cynthia Wilson then inquired about the contiguous dry land for Lot #8/122-1. Brian Pratt replied that these numbers were added to plan and met the contiguous dry land requirement of 1.5 acres. Cynthia Wilson asked if the fact that existing
wetlands interrupted the 50’ stretch of that lot was a factor to the Board.
Brian Pratt explained that the contiguous upland areas were totally contained. Cynthia Wilson stated that she was concerned about runoff that would result from construction and what would happen when a house was built on the mound with lawns and fertilizer running off towards the swamp with nothing to stop it. She added that at the site walk she noticed stumps that had been pushed up within 3 feet of the banks of the nearby brook on site and boulders against the edge of the pond which she presumed might be preludes to build-up plans in that area or the result of logging that had been done on site the previous summer. She noted that stumps had been left almost in the water. Cynthia Wilson stated that these things concerned her because this was activity that had occurred on the site before the
subdivision was even approved or before any homes were built.
Bob Furey stated that the applicant should demonstrate a two year storm calculation on the plan regarding the drainage calculations as the regulations called for, and also pointed out that the regulations allow for no post construction runoff increase. Brian Pratt noted that unless a level spreader or treatment swale was introduced on site then runoff would increase. He added that such treatment systems seemed excessive for one proposed additional house lot. Brian Pratt thought that they were more commonplace for road construction as part of a subdivision. Bob Furey noted that the applicant had demonstrated that all drainage leads to the swamp and that the applicant had to demonstrate no increase of runoff. Brian Pratt reiterated that they could
not do that unless a level spreader was installed. Bob Furey returned that he saw no reason why the applicant should not be including such a structure on their plan. Brian Pratt asked if the applicant could request a waiver in that regard. The Coordinator replied that waiver requests had been submitted for the drainage calculations and for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies.
The Chairman asked if the applicant was aware that the footings of Lot #8/122-2 were at 170’ on the plan which was 6’ below the water level on the site 40’ away at 176’. Dana Moody noted that this area was dry in the summer. The Chairman replied that the winter season also needed consideration. He added that, in his opinion, the lot was not suitable for building because it was so wet. Dana Moody noted that slab foundations could be considered if it became evident that digging foundations would cause too much impact. Douglas Hill commented that the footprint seemed small for a duplex. James Nordstrom felt that this case was a potential example of how lots might meet the letter of the ordinance while the intent was
borderline. The Chairman thought that this scenario went below the borderline of intent. Douglas Hill asked what the setback measure was from existing wetlands. Brian Pratt replied that it was approximately 35’. Douglas Hill noted that the typical disturbance during construction with excavators and other equipment was 30’, therefore, construction vehicles could potentially be within 5’ of wetlands. Brian Pratt stated that silt fence would be installed and orange construction fence to delineate the edge of wetlands. Douglas Hill stated that compaction of the soils from vehicular traffic would cause material to be pushed downhill to the wetlands. Dana Moody suggested that the building envelope could be moved for the home because the width between the easterly wetland and the large pond was 130’. Douglas Hill asked if test pits were performed for the septic systems. Brian Pratt replied that the applicant had
received State Subdivision Approval but was still
waiting on the septic approval. He added that the seasonal high water table was 26”. The
Chairman noted that the elevation of the septic was 177’ and that the water level was 66’ away. Brian Pratt stated that the water level did not necessarily go to the edge of the wetlands. James Nordstrom clarified that there could be certain times when the water level could pass the line of jurisdiction for the wetlands.
The Chairman stated that the scenarios discussed this evening could result in flooding of the proposed septic systems and pollution of the wetlands. He added that he had major issues with the water on Lot #8/122-2 to the point that he did not think it was a buildable lot. He also did not think that the other lot had the proper sight distance from the proposed driveway based on observations he made during the site walk. Brian Pratt offered that regrading could solve the sight distance issue. The Chairman replied that this was possible although he still saw Lot #8/122-2 as being unfeasible as a lot. He stated that he could not imagine what could be done to that lot to make it into a lot that someone would want to or should own. He pointed
out that the house would be located between two wetlands and according to the plans presented this evening, below one of them. Brian Pratt noted that a slab versus a foundation could be considered. The Chairman replied that a septic system would still be needed. Cynthia Wilson added that the homeowner’s outside activities could have a huge impact on the wetlands. The Chairman added that this scenario was like attempting to place a building lot on a tightrope and is probably why the lot was originally subdivided as it was. The Chairman further added that the Board would need more information back from the Conservation Commission to solidify their opinion. Cynthia Wilson asked if a letter with responses from the Conservation Commission’s next meeting would suffice. The Chairman replied that it would. Douglas Hill stated to the applicant that, as a builder, he had experienced similar scenarios as this one and from an
environmental standpoint it seemed as though a lot of fill would inevitably go into the wetlands if this subdivision occurred.
Dave Woodbury stated that the question to be answered tonight was whether the application was complete and in consideration of the outstanding sight distance issues he felt it was not. The Chairman noted that observing the sight distance at the site walk versus on paper was a very different view. James Nordstrom felt the proposed lots were extremely challenging.
Don Duhaime stated that he agreed with all the comments made on the application this evening. The Chairman offered that another meeting could be rescheduled for the applicant if they chose to have the sight distance redrawn for Lot #8/122-1. Brian Pratt asked if he should also submit revisions for Lot #8/122-2. The Chairman advised that the applicant should disregard Lot #8/122-2 as a lot and consider that the other lot had sight distance challenges. Douglas Hill suggested that removing some trees on the site could help with sight distance issues.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Dana Moody and Aaron McKenzie, Minor Subdivision, 3 Lots, Location: Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/122, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to April 11, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
This will be a work session for the Planning Board regarding the Driveway Regulations.
Because the Board had not been able to review information supplied at the meeting of January 24, 2006, to be discussed this evening it was determined that the Driveway Regulations work session would be rescheduled to the agenda of April 11, 2006.
6. Discussion, Re: village cistern. (Don Duhaime to present)
The Chairman stated that the topic of a village cistern was initially raised at discussions held during the Capital Improvement Planning meetings. Don Duhaime stated that he had contacted Natgus and had submitted a proposal for a 120,000 gallon concrete tank 40’ in diameter and 14’ high that could be tied into the New Boston Central School and eliminate the need for their 10,000 gallon tank. He added that if the Board was interested a vote could be held at the March meeting to start a reserve CRF for $75K. Don Duhaime noted that Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, had mentioned that he would prefer hydrants installed along the Piscataquog River to sustain water flow to the trucks in the case that the proposed tank could get 50 PSI’s. He
further noted that land existed on Meetinghouse Hill Road that provided a nice depression or flat spot to place such a tank and that grading could be done around it to decrease its visibility. Don Duhaime was unsure where the funding would originate to do preliminary engineering. Bob Furey thought that a CRF could provide such funding. Don Duhaime stated that Natgus was willing to view the proposed site which he felt looked like it was composed of satisfactory gravel material and not much ledge. He added that it might even be possible to have a gravel access road constructed behind the school to the tank.
The Chairman felt that Don Duhaime’s proposal could present a reasonable alternative to a cistern as its cost was $100K less. Don Duhaime stated that if the Board was interested Dan MacDonald and members of the Fire Wards could be asked to speak at the next meeting. Bob Furey thought this proposal might be better than the three individual tanks that had been discussed at CIP meetings. Don Duhaime reiterated that the cost of the one tank he proposed was $100K less and could supply 50 pounds of water pressure. He added that with an access road to the tank refilling would be easily addressed. Bob Furey asked how much pressure one of three 30,000 gallon tanks would provide. Don Duhaime replied that it would be a function of height.
James Nordstrom clarified that when tanks/cisterns were buried underground more PSI’s were lost and that in years prior when this scenario was discussed the initial analysis of having a buried cistern in the same location did not seem to serve the purpose intended as the water would have to be pulled downhill. Don Duhaime noted that grading around the proposed concrete tank would assure that it did not become an eyesore. The Chairman asked how freezing of the tank, being above ground, was avoided. Don Duhaime felt that if backfill was place around the tank it would keep it warm enough. He added that Natgus also had suggestions to that effect.
Dave Woodbury asked when it would be appropriate for the Town to formally consider the proposal and if the 2006 CIP meetings should address plans for a CRF. He noted that the Fire Department preferred to focus their CRF requests on equipment and did not want to lose that
support from voters by shifting its focus to ask for support for a cistern, therefore, sought the support of the Board of Selectmen in making this proposal. Bob Furey asked if a liability factor was involved for the Town in the event that a fire devastated the Village. Dave Woodbury recalled a case in a New Hampshire town where such an incident occurred and that inadequate water pressure was available to fight the fire. He noted that the Supreme Court had ruled that towns could not be legally affected by such scenarios. Don Duhaime stated that he would contact Natgus to view the site proposed for the tank along with Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief.
7. Discussion, Re: Steep Slopes Vote mailer.
The Coordinator distributed an example proposed bulk mailer to the Board. Dave Woodbury wondered if having this mailing generated by the Board suggested a certain position on the subject. The Coordinator replied that Bill Weston, the Steep Slopes Committee Chairman had been careful to be neutral which was why both positions for the vote were explained on the card. Dave Woodbury thought that the Board should rely on Warrant articles and explanations printed in the New Boston Bulletin as had been done traditionally. The Chairman asked if the Steep Slopes Committee had the authority to send the mailer in place of the Board. The Coordinator replied that they did not but that private individuals could send out what they wanted. Discussion
continued, noting that there did not seem to be the hue and cry surrounding this vote as there was last year. It was also mentioned that no one knew what the concerned landowners were planning to do prior to the vote and they may choose to do something very similar to the proposal before the Board tonight. It was noted that the Planning Board had never sent anything like this before to anyone’s recollection. The Board’s consensus was that the mailer not be sent out.
McCURDY DEVELOPMENT, LLC (APPLICANT)
FREDERICK & CELIA LORDEN, TRUSTEES, (OWNERS)
Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing/Design Review
Major Subdivision/37 Lots
Location: McCurdy Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 96
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Timothy Watson of Cuoco and Cormier who represented the applicant. Abutters and interested parties present were Cynthia Wilson, Jim Beaumont, Les and Anna Clark, Matt Haddad and Ken Brucker.
Timothy Watson stated that he had incorporated comments from the last meeting into the revised plans. In review he described the proposal as a 37 lot 175 acre subdivision with a through road off McCurdy Road which connected with Susan Road which in turn connected to Carriage Road. Timothy Watson described the proposed road as 4,400 lineal feet to its Susan
Road connection with a 1,000 cul-de-sac at its midpoint. He noted that the larger lots were proposed on the outside perimeters of the site while the more dense lots were on the inner portions with good flat land and minimal wetland pockets. Timothy Watson stated that the plan revisions showed the proposed road’s alignment moved towards an existing tree clearing with a 9% slope down to 6%. He noted that wetlands impacts with the initial design had been 2,800 s.f. and with the current revisions were now 2,100 s.f and 5,300 s.f. but allowed for a -1% entrance grade as required off McCurdy Road. Timothy Watson added that calculations made for a small wetland crossing at the connection to Susan Road were just over 1,000 s.f. and noted by pictorial changes on the plan. Timothy Watson noted
that the building envelopes on the plan were highlighted in blue and that the following conservation easements had been added: Lot #34: 10.35 acres, Lot #35: 8.1 acres (including wetland pockets) as requested by the Conservation Commission.
Timothy Watson stated that once final designs were being drawn he would try to adjust the proposed road’s profile to further adjust wetland impacts and sought the Board’s input as to whether they would prefer retaining walls in certain areas of the site. He noted that with the road configuration the lot stacking issues discussed at the last meeting were eliminated and one extra frontage lot was netted while one backlot was removed. Dave Woodbury asked if Lot #24 was a backlot versus a front lot as it had only 78’ of frontage. James Nordstrom stated that he had the same question. The Coordinator noted that there had been a few recent scenarios with other applicants of lots with short frontages because of the placement of the
200’ frontage square parallel with the road and these were viewed by the Board on an individual basis. Dave Woodbury stated that Lot #52 did not appear to be a backlot as it was not behind anything and it had 52’ of frontage versus 50’. Timothy Watson replied that Lot #52 was designed as a backlot and that the only other requirement it needed to fulfill was having a minimum of five acres which was the case. The Chairman noted that if the proposed road were shortened up to where Lot #22 was located and two 50’ driveways were installed to access Lot #’s 24 and 25 they would be considered backlots and that would be an inferior design to the one presented, therefore, because the Board viewed longer cul-de-sacs on a case by case basis he preferred this design to having a shorter cul-de-sac and two longer driveways. He noted that if the Board had the ability to grant leniency he was satisfied with the layout of Lot #24 and that
it would be worse to reduce Lot #25’s frontage to 50’ as it is behind Lot #26. Timothy Watson noted that the reason Lot #25’s frontage was 52’ and not 50’ was because it was on a curve in the proposed road. Dave Woodbury added that if you followed the driveway out from Lot #28 it appeared to be a backlot behind two others, however, when looking towards the cul-de-sac from
the driveway it looked permissible as it would be behind Lot #26. The Chairman asked if Lot #’s 28 and 29 could be combined and the corridor enclosed to 50’. Timothy Watson replied that he could discuss this with the applicants. The Coordinator wished to note that the stacking issue dealt with a backlot behind a backlot whereas a backlot behind two front lots was not an issue.
The Chairman asked if the Steep Slopes were represented in pink shading on the plan. Timothy Watson replied that Steep Slopes greater than 15% were represented by pink shading.
Bob Furey stated that the road profile with a -1% grade as it entered off McCurdy Road needed
to be -3% per the Subdivision Regulations. Timothy Watson asked if a waiver to that requirement were possible as he was trying to negotiate over a wetland crossing. Bob Furey replied that this could be considered, however, the -3% entrance grade requirement existed for erosion and runoff purposes. James Nordstrom stated that the Board had been asked to waive such a requirement before and in the most recent situation the Town Engineer recommended that such a waiver not be entertained. The Chairman asked if the scenario referred to Susan Road. James Nordstrom replied that it did. James Nordstrom asked for clarification of setbacks noted around certain wetlands on the plan. Timothy Watson explained that these were very poorly drained soils and that the building envelopes needed to be
shown at least 75’ away which was why the Steep Slopes greater than 15% were highlighted because the building envelopes could not be placed there.
Dave Woodbury wished to discuss the issue of access to Susan Road and the fact that Lot #12/93-34 was undeveloped because it would carry the extension of this proposed road. He asked what decisions on this matter needed to be made. The Coordinator explained that the two developers involved needed to assure that when the road connected through the properties Lot #12/93-34 continued to be a conforming lot. Timothy Watson asked if the lot in question should be viewed under the current Subdivision Regulations or according to what was approved with the prior subdivision. The Chairman replied that the two considerations were the same, therefore, the applicant should go by the current Subdivision Regulations. Bob Furey asked if the intent of the
applicant’s proposal was to connect the road with Susan Road. Timothy Watson replied that was the case. Douglas Hill asked where the road profiles were located. Timothy Watson replied that they were on the back of the submitted design and showed connections, and wetland crossings at station #’s 3, 7 and 42. Douglas Hill asked the grade patterns o the proposed road. Timothy Watson replied that they ran from 5% to 10%, 8% and to 6.75% but would need to be reworked in consideration of the -3% entrance grade requirement. Douglas Hill asked what the deepest proposed cut was. Timothy Watson replied that it was approximately 12-13’ and that a small hill located between two wetland crossings would need a 15’ cut. James Nordstrom asked if the test pits or soils had been done. Timothy Watson replied that they were recently completed for all the lots and that he was awaiting the final reports.
The Chairman asked if phasing the lots was considered. Timothy Watson replied that he was unsure of the developer’s plan and would speak with him. He asked if in regard to Lot #1 if it would be permissible to come onto a 9% slope with the driveway so that he could avoid crossing a wetland. James Nordstrom replied that 8% was the limit. Douglas Hill asked about wetland impacts. Timothy Watson replied that the original road profile presented 2,800 s.f. of impact in that location, therefore, the driveway for Lot #1 would most likely add 1,500 s.f. Douglas Hill asked the maximum amount of dredge and fill allowed per project. Timothy Watson explained that this was merely an extent of the permitting process. He noted that up to
3,000 s.f. was considered minimum and that this project was looking at 8,600 s.f. plus an additional crossing which would bring it to 10,000 s.f. Timothy Watson added that 20,000 s.f. was considered a major impact, however, depending on the situation mitigation might be required.
The Chairman asked if fire fighting water supply for the proposed subdivision had been considered. Timothy Watson replied that cisterns were proposed and wanted to know what the spacing criteria was for placement on the site. The Chairman stated that the plans would be forwarded to the Fire Department for their recommendations. He asked if the applicant had considered installing fire sprinklers in the homes on the proposed lots. Timothy Watson replied that the applicant had considered fire sprinklers, however, determined that their cost at $10K per home exceeded the cost of installing two or three cisterns in the subdivision. Bob Furey asked if the conservations easements previously noted were proposed to be shared by the homeowners or the Town. Timothy Watson replied that this would be a no disturbance easement. James Nordstrom asked if there would be a restriction on the individual deed for Lot #34. Timothy Watson replied that there would be and that there would
also be a small restriction placed on Lot #35 due to a pond on the lot.
James Nordstrom stated that he questioned whether a waiver should be considered for the driveway to proposed Lot #12/19-1 because the section of the proposed road from which the driveway would enter off exceeded a 9% grade. Douglas Hill asked if this lot had sight distance issues. Timothy Watson replied that it did not. The Chairman asked if Lot #12/19-1 was considered further subdividable. Timothy Watson replied that it was not due to the Steep Slopes and wetlands on the lot. The Chairman asked if this was a waivable scenario. The Coordinator replied that it was possible to entertain such a waiver. James Nordstrom thought that the justification for a waiver was good. The Chairman asked Cynthia Wilson if she had concerns
regarding this lot. Cynthia Wilson replied that, as an abutter, she saw no reason why Lot #’s 12/19-1 and 12/19-2 could not be combined into one lot and, therefore, eliminate the wetland crossing issue. Dave Woodbury noted that the proposed driveway for Lot #12/19-1 entered off McCurdy Road at the same point where the proposed road would have before the revisions were made to the plan. He added that he would not favor granting such a waiver for the driveway access because this was a dangerous point in the road for traffic to be turning in and out of even though the scenario had changed from roadway to driveway. The Chairman asked Timothy Watson to confer with the developer and ascertain if they would be willing to combine Lot #’s 12/19-1 and 12/19-2 as an alternative.
Cynthia Wilson stated that she abutted the site on the southerly end and wished to make the Board aware that there were other tracts of land under conservation easement that would be further benefited by having the developer offer connecting pieces from their site rather than little bits of non-connecting land that did not benefit wildlife. Abutter Jim Beaumont stated that he lived on Carriage Drive and abutted the north east section of the site. He added that he understood development was inevitable in the area but was concerned that with this proposal
another driveway would run close to his property which would mean that driveways then ran on three sides of his property. Jim Beaumont wondered if the developer could be approached on this matter so that he could retain some semblance of privacy on his lot. Timothy Watson thought that if the lot lines in question were moved over anymore then they would be dealing with an encroachment issue. The Chairman offered that if the strip were changed to 50’ the building envelope could remain where it was and Mr. Beaumont could be sold the remaining
piece of property which would only require a lot line adjustment. Jim Beaumont wished to add that in regard to driveways being proposed off McCurdy Road pulling onto McCurdy Road was dangerous in the best seasonal conditions as he had experienced the fast speeds of oncoming traffic when exiting Carriage Road. Abutter Les Clark noted that he was concerned about the same driveway Mr. Beaumont referred to that would run near his property line and asked if the lot line adjustment were made as suggested where it would be located. Timothy Watson replied that it would probably still be 100’ or more of vegetation between the driveway and the Clark’s house. Les Clark asked who he should speak to regarding questions about the driveway. The Chairman replied that the developer would be the
contact. Les Clark stated that he asked the question because he hoped to keep as much of a buffer as possible between himself and that property.
Interested party Matt Haddad of Carriage Drive asked for clarification of the building envelope for Lot #12/19-28. Timothy Watson explained that a building envelope was a required 200’ X 200’ square on a proposed lot. He noted that on front lots the 200’ X 200’ square was required at the setback line. Matt Haddad asked if the locations for the homes on the proposed lots were likely to be in the blue shaded areas noted on the plan. Timothy Watson stated that that was the case. Interested party Ken Brucker thought that the rear section of the proposed subdivision looked dense. Timothy Watson replied that there were less Steep Slopes and wetlands in this area and that while there were four lots in that area just over
two acres the remaining lots averaged 2.25 and 2.5 acres.
Cynthia Wilson asked how a nearby resident would go about having their well bonded by the builder for this applicant. The Chairman replied that he was not aware of situations where developers bonded abutters’ wells. He added that a Board member not present this evening who was in the blasting profession had stated many times in the past that there was no provable case of blasting affecting an existing well. Timothy Watson added that the nearest abutter was over 500’ away from the proposed road location. The Chairman noted that if an abutter wished they could have well tests performed prior to and after blasting and that if the post tests revealed a change in the well water quality an attorney could handle such a case. Ken Brucker
asked if blasting was proposed. Timothy Watson replied that they were unsure at his point in the process.
Dave Woodbury asked if Cynthia Wilson had any comments as to how this proposal in question should be presented differently regarding open space or easements. Cynthia Wilson noted that there was no common property in any of the developments in this area and with this proposal there was still nothing being offered. Dave Woodbury asked if the Board had the power to demand common property. Cynthia Wilson replied that she did not think the Board had this authority.
A site walk was scheduled for March 11, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. The Chairman asked that wetlands, centerline of the proposed road, lot corners and driveways be staked for the site walk.
Timothy Watson replied that this would be done.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of McCurdy Development, LLC (Applicant), Frederick and Celia Lorden, Trustees, (Owners), Major Subdivision, 37
Lots, Location: McCurdy Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 96, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, to April 11, 2006, at 7:30 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it
PASSED unanimously.
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. An interested party present was Adam Drew.
The Chairman stated that after conferring with Town Counsel it was determined that the release of liability could not reasonably be extended to patrons of a business with a Site Plan on a Class VI roadway without first approaching the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for a variance and the Selectmen for a release of liability. Michael Pare asked who would be liable for anyone traveling on a Class VI road who did not reside on it and became injured. The Chairman replied that even if the road were Class V it would not be under the Town’s liability. He explained that the issue was that the requirement began with building off a Class V so that a reasonable attempt was made. The Chairman noted that he was unsure of what the Selectmen’s opinion
would be regarding a business use on a Class VI road. Dave Woodbury commented that he was unsure if such a scenario was ever presented in the Town.
Linda Pothier stated that she spent a great deal of money on gravel and bulldozing to have Helena Drive maintained and through such efforts never had any issue accommodating a 40’ horse trailer down that road. In contrast, she added that she frequently had problems maneuvering on the adjoining Riverdale Road which was also a dirt road but with Class V status. The Chairman asked what the applicant’s request to the ZBA would be. The Coordinator replied that it would be a variance to request that development be allowed to take place on a lot with Class V road frontage. She added that Town Counsel had stated that this case was a text book example of why the Town should not grant approval for construction on Class VI roads because maintenance
issues aside, the law states that Class VI roads are not maintained by the Town. The Chairman asked what type of release existed for the Friendly Beaver Campground as it too was on a Class VI road which was maintained by the business owners for the campground’s use. Dave Woodbury thought that the campground scenario predated Zoning. The Chairman further noted that expansion of the campground had been approved since Zoning was established. James Nordstrom thought that two different scenarios were being compared as the topography of the land, vertical and horizontal geometries of the roads and grades were very different. Linda Pothier stated that it was unfortunate that she could not operate an agricultural business in an agricultural district. The Chairman thought that if the dog sitting proposal was not part of the Site Plan then there would not be much of an issue. The Coordinator noted that the main issue
was intensity of use which involved traffic increase to the road and that the business use of the applicants’ residence was not anticipated under the original release of liability. Linda Pothier asked if posting a different type of sign on the road such as: “Travel at your own risk” would be palatable. James Nordstrom noted that the proposal was well suited for the property and the unfortunate aspect was getting to the property by way of a Class V road. Linda Pothier reiterated that Helena Drive as a Class VI road was in better shape travel wise than Riverdale Road and Laurel Lane which she once resided on. Douglas Hill asked if it would be possible to bring Helena Drive up to Class V road standards. James Nordstrom replied that this could be an option. Linda Pothier
stated that she could not afford the cost to support such upgrades.
Michael Pare stated that they wished that they had been made aware of this issue initially. He added that Helena Drive was used as a cut through from Twin Bridge Road by some commercial vehicles and under the liability scenario he assumed that this road should not be used for these purposes. Michael Pare asked how the expansions to the Friendly Beaver Campground were allowed if they were located on a Class VI road. The Chairman explained that the Friendly Beaver Campground’s owners were responsible for any upgrades and maintenance to the road which shifted the responsibility and liability onto them under their campground insurance policy, therefore, removing the Selectmen’s risk. Dave Woodbury added that the only responsibility the Town
incurred was if the Town damaged the road when accessing the Sherburne lot to get sand for the Highway Department. He added that if Helena Drive were brought up to the same levels as the campground road (Cochran Hill Road) then many of his objections would go away. Interested party Adam Drew asked if all Class VI roads were not considered passable at the driver’s risk. The Chairman clarified that no one accepted responsibility for injury regardless. Dave Woodbury clarified that Town Counsel’s opinion was based on the fact that if someone is running a business on a Class VI road they are inviting the masses to visit and suggesting that the road is safe to the general public which cannot be considered the case.
The Chairman suggested that the applicants meet with the Selectmen and try to reach an agreement to upgrading and maintaining the road to standards they could support. Linda Pothier replied that a major problem with that suggestion was that other residents had undone upgrade work they had spent money on, for example, $1,000 when they first moved in. The Chairman reiterated that a discussion with the Selectmen would be the next step for the applicants. Dave Woodbury added that the Selectmen would not only need to give permission to the applicants but make arrangements for upgrades to the road as it would essentially need to be brought up to Class V standards. He added that the Road Agent’s opinion on the minimum requirements needed to do so would be
necessary. Linda Pothier was concerned about the limits to fulfilling such requirements as she had gone through a similar process when she lived on Laurel Lane and received a $10K bill for improvements made by her contractor at the Town’s request that she had no knowledge of.
Michael Pare asked when the Board received Town Counsel’s opinion. The Chairman
stated that the Board received the opinion on Wednesday, February 22, 2006. Michael Pare stated that he was under the impression at the last meeting that they were to receive a letter
containing a list of items that they needed to update on the plan so that they knew ahead of this
meeting what was outstanding.
The Chairman returned to the subject of the release of liability and explained that the reason the house was allowed on a Class VI road was due to the Selectmen’s initial release of liability. He noted that going forward the Selectmen would next have to grant permission and release of liability to operate a business on the Class VI road according to a list of stipulations and would then enter into an agreement with the applicants which would shift the responsibility from the Town to them. The Coordinator further noted that a written opinion from Town Counsel in general, and regarding whether input from the ZBA was warranted in particular, should be obtained. Michael Pare raised his previous question regarding whether or not commercial vehicles should
be using a Class V road such as a pay loader that used Helena Drive as a throughway. The Chairman replied that the road was open to the public.
Linda Pothier asked if the Planning Board’s recommendation precluded the Selectmen’s approval. Dave Woodbury clarified that the Board would not be able to grant an approval until this issue was resolved with the Selectmen. He asked if any other items remained outstanding on the plan such as the scale which was discussed at the prior meeting. Michael Pare stated that the scale of the plan was not included on the list of items provided by the Planning Department after the last meeting. He noted the only items on this list to be signage, hours of operation and the number of dogs allowed on site at a given time. The Chairman asked what the current scale of the plan was. Linda Pothier replied that it was based on the tax map at a
400% scale. The Coordinator asked if the tax map used was the reduced size or full size as 1” typically equaled 400’ to be easily measured with a ruler, not 1”equal to 800’ as shown on the plan. The Chairman stated that the applicant should correct the scale of the plan. Linda Pothier noted that the first time they met with the Board they were told that they could hand draw a picture for their plan if they wished and three months later the scale was now an issue. James Nordstrom suggested that the plan be labeled “not to scale”. The Chairman felt that with a plot plan this large there should not be an issue and the problem was that a scale was provided which was incorrect. Returning to Mr. Pare’s previous comment regarding an incomplete list of outstanding items, the Coordinator wished to note that the Planning Department’s checklist review was done based on checklist items only and that the
standard letter provided by the Board stated that other Board issues may exist that would be discussed at a meeting with the applicant.
The Chairman summarized that the outstanding items that remained on the plan were the revision of the scale, the Selectmen’s opinion on the Class VI road status and release of liability, and the Board securing a legal opinion from Town Counsel regarding input from the ZBA. He noted that he did not fully understand the liability issue himself. Dave Woodbury asked if it was the practice to involve the ZBA when a house was proposed on a Class VI road. The Coordinator replied that this had been the practice since 2004 and noted similar scenarios such as the cell tower proposed on Wilson Hill Road and the lot across from the mill on Saunders Hill Road. Linda Pothier asked if they needed to request time on the agenda with the Selectmen through the
Town Administrator. The Chairman replied that was correct.
Linda Pothier recalled that a llama farm existed on their site before they moved onto the property and asked how that approval came about. The Coordinator replied that the llama farm
had no Site Plan on file and if it was operating commercially was, therefore, operating illegally. Linda Pothier stated that she could also foresee the other residents being against Helena Drive’s upgrade to Class V standards as it would then make land on the road subdividable. Dave Woodbury noted that it could be possible to not raise the road to an actual Class V but rather an acceptable standard. He added that in order to raise Helena Drive to Class V a Town vote would be required. Linda Pothier noted that an historic stonewall existed on Helena Drive and it would be unfortunate to have to remove it in order to widen the road. Dave Woodbury stated that at this point he was unsure of what improvements would need to be made. Douglas Hill wondered if a consenting opinion from an
attorney who had dealt with a similar scenario for another town might be helpful. The Chairman did not think the applicants should waste their funds on an attorney and should first meet with the Selectmen.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Linda Pothier and Michael Pare, Public Hearing/NRSPR/Kennel/Boarding/Riding Stable, Location: 40 Helena Drive, Tax Map/Lot #3/21, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to April 25, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
8a. A copy of a letter dated February 22, 2006, from Brandon Brooks, to the Board, Re: retail automotive sales business, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Addressed with item #8b.
8b. A copy of a memo dated February 22, 2006, from Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant, to the Board, Re: Brandon Brooks, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that Mr. Brooks needed to submit for Site Plan Review. Dave Woodbury asked if Mr. Brooks was aware of this. The Planning Assistant replied that she would inform him. The Chairman asked if the criteria for Site Plan Review were applicable, namely a home business where the owner lived on site. The Coordinator replied that was the case.
9a. A copy of a letter dated February 15, 2006, from Mitch Larochelle to the Board, Re: Carriage Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Addressed with item #9b.
9b. A copy of a letter dated February 22, 2006, from Rene LaBranche of Dufresne-Henry, Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator and to the Board, Re: Carriage Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Dave Woodbury asked if these letters represented a solution to a problem or created a new one. The Coordinator noted that Dufresne-Henry, Inc. was coming up with a solution to the sight distance issues and the traffic engineer and civil engineer from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., working on this solution had had no involvement earlier in the process and could, therefore, almost be considered third party independent reviewers. She noted that Rene LaBranche, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had indicated that their plan involved only minimal changes to Carriage Road, however, even with minimal changes the Board may be required to ask T.F. Moran to sign off on the plans. Dave Woodbury asked if T.F. Moran were obstinate if Dufresne-Henry, Inc., would need to sign off on the plans
at their own expense. The Coordinator replied that would be the case. Dave Woodbury clarified that this was why Dufresne-Henry, Inc., was reviewing the road improvement plans and designing engineering that would solve the issue. The Coordinator replied that she was unsure of the detail that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., would provide, however, they sought to look for a solution and provide direction to the Board who could then provide direction to T.F. Moran. Dave Woodbury asked what the next step was. The Coordinator replied that once the Board had Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s, recommendations they could review them along with the developer and decide how these improvements could be made. The Chairman asked who the contact was for the developer. The Coordinator replied that Neil Smith, (spouse of Jacqueline Smith, Trustee for Harvey Dupuis Family Trust), was the appropriate contact. The Chairman asked when Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s
opinion was expected. The Coordinator thought that an opinion should be available by the end of the following week (around March 10, 2006). The Chairman requested that Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s, opinion be Emailed to him when it was made available.
10. A copy of a letter received February 17, 2006, from Richard F. Colarusso, to Nicola Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, Re: Moody/McKenzie subdivision application, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that the above noted letter regarded a follow up to the length of time regarding notices.
11. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Warner, Re: installation of a wireless telecommunication facility.
12. Adam Drew was present in the audience and stated that he was here to observe as he might have interest in applying for a position as a Planning Board Alternate.
At 11:08 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted, Suzanne O’Brien, Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
|