Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 03/28/2006
Planning Board Minutes of March 28, 2006

The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan.  Present were regular members, James Nordstrom; ex-officio Christine Quirk; and, alternate Don Duhaime.  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 Cynthia Wilson, Neil Smith, Mitch Larochelle, Lisa Jeck, Ellen Kambol, Peter Hedrick, Jonathan Brooks, Bob Makowiecki, Willard Dodge, Rick Martin, Jay Marden, Roch Larochelle, Michael Coon, Dennis Robinson, Esq., Mike Ryan, Esq., Kim Burkhamer, Rick Kohler, Norman and Barbara Gagnon, Ray Shea, LLS, Tony Hall and William Matheson, IV, Ken Lombard, Rob Starace and Phil and Holly Duke.

        Present for this discussion was Neil Smith, representative of the Dupuis Family Trust, and Mitch Larochelle.
        Neil Smith stated that T.F. Moran had responded to a recent letter by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., regarding this issue in more of a rebuttal fashion than a constructive one.  He added that he only had the conceptual plans for the road improvements with him this evening as T.F. Moran had neglected to provide him with the approved ones in time for this meeting.  Neil Smith stated that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had suggested in their letter that Susan Road be moved at the intersection with Carriage Road easterly by 5’ along with, he assumed, the right-of-way.  The Chairman interjected that he believed it was only the road and not the right-of-way that was suggested to be moved which was not uncommon.  Neil Smith noted that this solution presented a problem because moving the road easterly by 5’ would mean that slopes and drainage patterns would then impact existing conservation areas.  He added that a telephone pole would also need to be moved and although this was feasible T.F. Moran did not believe it was practical.  Neil Smith added that another suggestion offered by the Town Engineer was to lower Carriage Road by 1 to 1.5’.  He admitted that T.F. Moran’s response to this suggestion was again blunt but the problem dealt with the existing crest on the road and the fact that Susan Road already approached the intersection at a steep pitch which had been allowed on the plan by a waiver from the Board.  Neil Smith noted further that he did not understand Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s, reference to asymmetrical vertical curves but added that T.F. Moran had replied that such curves would not be workable.   
        Neil Smith then referred to paragraph #2 in Dufresne Henry, Inc.’s, letter : “We recommend that the intersection be designed to provide appropriate all season stopping e.g. (250’) based on 2004 Edition AASHTO standards.  In addition we recommend the minimum K value of 29 be used for roadway vertical curves on Carriage Road”.  He noted that 250’ stopping sight distance (not to be confused with 390’ of intersection sight distance) was the current status at the intersection. Neil Smith added that the current K value of Carriage Road was 31 which was flatter than Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s, suggested K value of 29.  The Chairman thought that the issue was that the original plan design did not correlate with the road as it was constructed.  Neil Smith replied that Carriage Road was constructed according to the specifics of
the original plan.  The Coordinator stated that she understood the K value of the vertical curve to be 13 and not 31.  Neil Smith explained that T.F. Moran’s proposed solution in order to gain 390’ of  intersection sight distance was to alter the K value to 13 and take down the existing crest on Carriage Road by approximately 2’, however, the issue became that a K value of 13 would create unsafe sight distance on Carriage Road.  The Chairman asked if T.F. Moran had a solution to the issue.  Neil Smith noted that if paragraph #2 of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s letter was their intended comment then no solution was necessary.  Mitch Larochelle asked if this was the case why Dufresne-Henry, Inc., continued to offer scenarios for solutions to the issue.  Neil Smith wondered if a typographical error was made in the letter and “intersection sight distance”, not “stopping sight distance” was the terminology that was intended.  He noted that T.F. Moran was still working on the issue and had not yet been in contact with the Town Engineer.  The Chairman felt that a compromise between T.F. Moran and Dufresne-Henry, Inc., would be the ultimate resolution to this issue.  Neil Smith asked if once such a resolution was reached if the applicant would need to re-approach the Board or if the matter could be handled between the two engineers.  The Chairman replied that the Board would want the applicant to confer with the Board and that it was likely to be a brief meeting.  Mitch Larochelle noted that the time frame for gaining this resolution was apt to delay impending closings on Susan Road.  He further noted that his contractor, Dave Elliot, had informed him that even with a viable solution reached at this meeting it would take until the end of May to carry out the field changes which conflicted with the closing date of one of the homes.  Neil Smith stated that the road was bonded which should be a consideration.  The Chairman asked when an answer from T.F. Moran was expected.  Neil Smith replied that because the solution to this issue was still unknown he was unsure when an answer would be available but hoped something would materialize in the next two weeks.
        Neil Smith wished to clarify that, as subdividers, it was their obligation to propose plans for a subdivision and road design when seeking site approval and although they did not take issue with redesigning this road in the interest of safety he did not feel it was their responsibility to incur the Town Engineer’s costs for their own redesign as they did not initially flag the flaws in the design that brought this issue forward.  The Chairman stated that this was also the position of the Board and he did not believe that Dufresne-Henry, Inc., intended to bill the applicant for their redesign suggestions.  The Coordinator concurred.  The Chairman noted that he felt the applicant had misquoted him previously in stating that this issue was allowed to “slip through the cracks” by T.F. Moran at the time of the plan’s approval when in fact this flaw was not intentionally overlooked.  He noted that the Town Engineer had been paid to perform the initial review and were in agreement that they would do a redesign at their own cost.
        James Nordstrom asked how waiting for an impending resolution would affect the subdivision.  Mitch Larochelle replied that a closing scheduled for April 15, 2006, would be affected.  The Chairman noted that delayed closings were a side effect of assuring that an unsafe road (as Mitch Larochelle had called it) was addressed.  Mitch Larochelle noted that this issue originally came to light when he responded to concerned residents of Carriage Road over safety improvements that were approved by the Board and then readdressed by the Board for over six months which was now affecting his business.  He added that he was also concerned about safety
and noted that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, of Sandford Survey and Engineering had been adamant in his safety arguments for Carriage Road because he had experienced a personal tragedy when his nephew was killed by a car in Town several years prior.  The Chairman stated that Mitch Larochelle aptly provided justification as to why the Board should not grant CO’s for residents on that road until that design was determined to be safe.  Neil Smith noted that the road was bonded and they were committing to build a safe road.  The Chairman replied that this was recognized.  Neil Smith added that all season safe sight distance 2’ off the road was a requirement and at this time of year he did not believe that snow would inhibit that scenario and sight distance was probably close to 390’, therefore, as long as this issue was resolved before the next snow season it was unlikely that an unsafe condition existed.  Mitch Larochelle stated that the road could have been improved as designed and now the timeliness for them and their customers was being held over their heads.  He added that Susan Road was also not yet paved with the final coat of pavement, however, this was allowable because under the Subdivision Regulations the road had to set for one winter.  The Chairman asked how long the re-engineering was slated to take. Neil Smith replied that this was unknown as it involved the collaboration of two engineering firms with engineers being highly opinionated by nature.  Mitch Larochelle noted that the time frame of getting the work to the road completed even with an agreement was at least two months.  The Chairman stated that he would have less concern over upcoming closings if cautionary construction signs were installed along the road as he would want a reasonable individual to be aware that construction equipment could be traveling on the road.  He added that this would slow traffic and help reduce high speed mishaps if the signs were abided by.  Mitch Larochelle stated that this could be done.  The Chairman noted that the residents on Carriage Road should be contacted so that they were aware of the reason for the warning signs.  Mitch Larochelle replied that he had been keeping them abreast of the situation.  
        The Chairman asked what other construction items were taking place in the subdivision.  Neil Smith replied that only minor items on Susan Road including a retaining fence and some drainage were left.  James Nordstrom stated that as long as a resolution was being pursued the ultimate issue was the release of the Occupancy Permits by the Building Department and the Board could forward their recommendation to the Building Department based on the information provided that these Permits not be withheld.  The Chairman asked how many closings were pending in the subdivision.  Mitch Larochelle replied that there was one closing scheduled in two weeks and a second at the end of May, 2006, with a third two or three months after that.  The Chairman stated that he did not feel a need to have the first two closings delayed given that a resolution seemed imminent, however, if this did not transpire then the third and subsequent closings were likely to be delayed.  Mitch Larochelle stated that he felt comfortable in assuming that if the two engineers could reach a resolution this issue could be resolved at the next meeting with the Board.  Neil Smith noted that they may not have all the details of the final design worked out but could outline the hard core elements in the next couple of weeks without providing formal plans (cross sections, etc.) if it pleased the Board.  The Chairman asked what this would accomplish.  Neil Smith replied that it could assure the Board that the end was in sight.  Mitch Larochelle noted that the input of the Highway Department, Road Committee and various engineers had been made available, therefore, it was up to the Board to make a judgment call on this issue.  The Chairman stated that T.F. Moran designed the road and Dufresne-Henry,
Inc., reviewed the plans, therefore, these two engineers were the parties involved and the Town Engineer’s sign off was all that was needed to confirm that Carriage Road was reasonably safe.  He added that it was understood that the contractor had the option of building to the approved plan, therefore, it was in Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s, interest to stay involved and resolve the issue and get T.F. Moran to design the road to a workable solution.  Neil Smith preferred that the solution involved staying within the right-of-way of the road and only changing the road grades.  The Chairman noted that grading into conservation areas should be kept to a minimum.  Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, was present in the audience and interjected that conservation easements in this area had been worked on by the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers and others long before this subdivision was constructed and were not allowed to be impacted in any way.  Neil Smith added that it might be necessary to obtain slope easements on private property when road improvements were made and these could take time to obtain.  The Chairman noted that it would be unreasonable of the Board to delay the applicant due to issues such as these.  
        James Nordstrom stated that it appeared that at least a red line resolution of the plan would be feasible within the next two weeks.  The Chairman added that he was more comfortable with the provision of a red line plan rather than having adjustments to the original plan made in the field.  He thought it reasonable that a red line plan be roughed out and that the Board notify the Building Inspector not to hold the Certificate’s of Occupancy back for the two upcoming scheduled closings on Susan Road.  The Board agreed.

This will be an informational session with Lisa Jeck to discuss a proposed use of Tax Map/Lot #8/113, 110 River Road.

        Present in the audience for this discussion were Lisa Jeck, Ellen Kambol and Peter Hedrick.  Lisa Jeck stated that she wished to gain input from the Board tonight regarding her conceptual ideas for the use of the property at 110 River Road.  She added that when she purchased the property her intent had been to use it as an educational facility, however, she now wished to reside there as well and wondered what the restrictions would be on parking and the driveway going forward with her design of the site.  Lisa Jeck noted that she had employed Dave Ely as her architect and Ellen Kambol for interior work along with landscape design for parking and the driveway.  She added that a septic plan prepared for the site in 1997 illustrated the location of the existing house on the property and the current driveway.  Lisa Jeck stated that she was interested to know what was allowed for use in this site’s “R-A” Zone and how she should progress with her conceptual plan.  
        The Chairman clarified that Lisa Jeck wished to make her residence on the site and also operate a business.  Lisa Jeck replied that was correct and that the type of business would involve day-long retreats and/or evening educational programs that dealt with spiritual well being such as yoga, meditation, Fung Shui, pottery and art.  She stressed that the proposed facility would not offer overnight stays and would not be considered as a counseling center.  Ellen Kambol asked what the Zoning requirements were for small occupancy establishments of 10 persons or less.  
The Chairman replied that a Commercial Zoning status would be required and that would
involve a ballot vote by the Town.  James Nordstrom noted that a variance for the usage could also be obtained as an alternative approach.  Ellen Kambol asked what the usage would be considered as for a small establishment such as what Lisa Jeck proposed.  The Coordinator referenced the Zoning Regulations and stated that a private school was one such use which did not have as limited requirements as a home business.  She then read the definition of “private school” from the Zoning Regulations: “…an organization that provides instruction and or education of individuals that is privately owned.  A private school is also that in which special subjects or skill are taught such as art, dance and photography.  A riding academy would also be considered to be a private school”.  Lisa Jeck stated that this definition seemed to parallel what she was considering for her business.  She then submitted her conceptual plan to the Board which noted an existing three bedroom house and garage.  Peter Hedrick asked what the minimum parking requirement would be for a private school as defined in the Zoning Regulations.  As there were no specifics listed, the Coordinator explained that any such parking requirements would be based on Site Plan Review and the Board’s discretion.  Peter Hedrick asked if the parking spaces should then be proposed should then be proposed based on the maximum class size entertained on site.  The Chairman replied that would be the case.  Peter Hedrick asked if there were any other obvious requirements Lisa Jeck should be considering when preparing her plan.  The Chairman replied that exterior lighting should be considered while any lighting inside the building would be a building code issue.
        Lisa Jeck asked where she would find specific information regarding driveway design for a site off a major route such as NH Route 13.  The Coordinator replied that this information could be found at the District 5 DOT office in Hooksett, NH.  Ellen Kambol asked how drainage scenarios for the site should be addressed.  James Nordstrom replied that drainage would be addressed with the Driveway Application.  Ellen Kambol asked about signage for the site.  The Coordinator explained that the State’s setback requirements would need to be obtained and that Section 318 of the Zoning Regulations provided the requirements for sizing of the sign.
        Lisa Jeck asked how abutters would be addressed.  The Chairman replied that when a hearing was scheduled for a filed application abutters to the site would be notified and could then attend the hearing(s) and express any concerns they might have.  Ellen Kambol asked if the Town had specific requirements for septic systems.  James Nordstrom replied that the Town did not have any requirements that superceded the State’s and that if a usage change was being considered for the site it could exceed the flows under the current use.  Ellen Kambol then asked if a small usage such as what Lisa Jeck was considering would evoke any local concerns in terms of traffic on NH Route 13.  The Chairman replied that because the site was on a State road the driveway design would need to be designed in such a way that all State requirements were satisfied.  Ellen Kambol asked the Board if there were any other concerns or suggestions they could offer at this point and there were none.


BROOKS, SAMUEL PHILIP ET AL
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Pine Road
Tax Map/Lot #4/40 & 4/69
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Rick Kohler of Robert Todd Land Use Consultants and property owner Jonathan Brooks.  An abutter present was Bob Makowiecki.
        Rick Kohler explained that the site was located at the western limits of Pine Road and the applicant proposed to merge Lot #4/40 with the area known as Parcel A, a discontinued portion of Pine Road (by Town vote in 1989).  He added that the current area of Lot #4/40 was 4.3 acres and with the proposed lot line adjustment it would become 4.65 acres.  Rick Kohler noted that Parcel A was 0.35 acres in size.  He added that waivers had been requested in writing for Site Specific Soils Mapping, Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies and the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.  Rick Kohler stated that covenants were listed on the Warranty Deed and the road bed would be a continued use for recreational foot traffic, equestrian use and no motor vehicles.
        The Chairman asked why the lot line adjustment was proposed.  Rick Kohler replied that the Brooks family owned the property to the south of the site and this lot line adjustment would make the property line coincidental between two lots.  Jonathan Brooks stated that his family wished to keep the discontinued portion of Pine Road open going forward as was agreed upon at the time of the Town vote for recreational and emergency use.  He added that he also wanted to give the potential owners of Parcel A the ability to use that road and rights in front of their house up to an existing stone wall for plantings, etc., as the current lot line came up under the front deck of the house on that property.  Jonathan Brooks noted that the other uses allowed and in keeping with an existing 150 acre conservation easement were that only one residential structure be on the lot and no further subdivision be allowed on the conveyed lot.  The Chairman asked if there were covenants on Parcel A at this time.  Jonathan Brooks replied that the existing deed stated that no further subdivision could occur.  He explained that his parents had owned this lot and after their death the property was rented, however, the family had now decided to sell it but wanted the covenants to coincide with these 4 acres as well.  The Chairman clarified that there were no current covenants on Parcel A but with the proposed lot line adjustment the covenants would be included.  Jonathan Brooks replied that was the case.  
        The Chairman asked if language for the proposed type of traffic allowed on the road bed was in the covenants.  Jonathan Brooks replied that language was currently in the deed under item #1: “…no motorized vehicles, recreational or otherwise, except for emergency vehicles…”  He explained that he wished to keep the road open for larger emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and also for logging equipment in addition to any family activities that might occur beyond the existing house.  The Chairman asked if the Brooks family intended to keep ownership of the remaining land.  Jonathan Brooks replied that this was the case and reiterated
that this land was in conservation.  The Chairman asked how far up Pine Road the Brooks family owned.  Jonathan Brooks replied that they owned up to the top of the hill at the Bryson homestead.  He added that this was a parcel of land opened to the public with no restrictions other than no hunting or motorized vehicles.  Jonathan Brooks further added that the Brooks family had an amicable agreement with the Piscataquog Trailways Association so that horses could cross through the land.  The Chairman stated that he did not have any issues with the proposal.
        Abutter Bob Makowiecki wished to clarify that the applicant was proposing to extend Parcel A to the south side of Pine Road onto the bigger parcel.  Jonathan Brooks explained that they were extending Lot #4/40 by the width of the road in that location in order that the lot line was no longer under the front porch of the existing house.  Bob Makowiecki asked if the lot line adjustment was to extend all the way up the road.  Jonathan Brooks replied that the lot line adjustment was only immediately in front of the 4 acres of Parcel A and that the road would remain open for its allowed usage.  James Nordstrom asked what the status of Parcel A was currently.  Rick Kohler replied that it was considered its own individual parcel and was a joint ownership between Lot #4/40 and 4/69 to the centerline of the road.  Jonathan Brooks explained that the former right-of-way was maintained by owners of the properties abutting, however, was open to passive recreation as well.  The Chairman asked who was responsible for the taxes on Parcel A.  Jonathan Brooks believed that it would be the owner of the house on Lot #4/40.  Christine Quirk noted that under Article 17, when that portion of Pine Road was discontinued by the Town vote it was determined and also stated in the deed that the road would remain open to emergency vehicles indefinitely.  The Board determined that a site walk was not warranted.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waivers captioned in a letter by Bob Todd, LLS,      on February 8, 2006, for Site Specific, Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies and the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Samuel Philip  Brooks, et al, for Tax Map/Lot #4/40 & 4/69, Pine Road, subject to:

                CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
                1.   Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,                           including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
                2.   Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD.
                The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be May 1, 2006, confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board.  Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
  
        Jonathan Brooks wished to clarify item #2 on the deed which stated that only one
residential structure could exist on the conveyed lot.  He thought this language was vague as a condominium/duplex could also be considered one structure.  The Chairman        suggested that “single family residence” be added in the language and clarified with the        Coordinator that such language could be accepted.  The Coordinator replied that it could.
        Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        The Chairman appointed Board alternate Don Duhaime as a full voting member for this evening.

DONALD E. GARRETSON (APPLICANT/OWNER)    Adjourned from 2/14/06
RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC., RICK MARTIN (APPLICANT)       
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/20 Lots                                        
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 52
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Michael Coon of Sandford Survey and Engineering, Dennis Robinson, Esq., of Wiggin and Nourie, Rick Kohler and the applicant Rick Martin.  Abutters and interested parties present were Cynthia Wilson, Jay Marden, Kim Burkhamer, Roch Larochelle and Mike Ryan, Esq.
        Michael Coon stated that in early March, 2006, the applicant submitted plans to the Board for the proposed secondary intersection at Beard Road and “Pasture Road”.  He noted that the previous intersection proposed on Beard Road had been located on property owned by Right Way Builders, however, the existing condition of Beard Road had prevented its feasibility due to sight distance and drainage issues.  Michael Coon added that in order to increase these safety factors Right Way Builders had since acquired Lot #5/50-1 and the intersection was shifted on the plan as a way to increase sight distance onto Beard Road to the required 390’ which had been one of the major issues of the application.  He stated that the two plans had been sent to Dufresne-Henry, Inc., and he wished to discuss the comments offered in their review letter along with any input the Board had tonight.  
        Michael Coon stated that the first of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s, comments regarded tree trimming recommended on the northerly side of Beard Road on neighboring Lot #5/33 to increase safe sight distance.  He explained that Right Way Builders was in the process of obtaining an easement from that property owner in order to provide the required safe distance and increase the safety of the existing curve at the bottom of Beard Road.  Michael Coon noted that Rene LaBranche, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had questioned the wording of the correlating note on the plan and they would, therefore, address the wording.  He continued with the second comment made by Rene LaBranche, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., which read as follows: “This issue relates to the existing roadway profile vertical alignment through the proposed intersection.  Although not identified on the existing profile it appears that the vertical curve through the intersection has a K value well under 29.  This K value is necessary to provide an appropriate approaching sight distance at the roadway curve”.  Michael Coon explained that Rene LaBranche was referring to the existing crest on Beard Road where the K value related to the slope up and down the road as well as the length of the curve.  He added that the applicant had located “Pasture Road’s” proposed intersection at this crest to maximize sight distance availability for cars parked on “Pasture Road”.  Michael Coon noted that cars traveling on Beard Road would have no effect due to this proposed intersection and the geometry of Beard Road was in place with no plans to alter it due to the severe limitations of the property boundaries which were 33’ wide in most locations along this section of the road.  He further noted that with the recent acquisition of Lot #5/50-1 the applicant was able to take advantage of existing features along that area of Beard Road and was now looking for guidance from the Board in terms of the existing road and the new proposed location of the intersection.
        James Nordstrom wished to clarify the last point mentioned in the review letter by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., which was that the existing crest curve on Beard Road did not have adequate passing sight distance if a vehicle was traveling along Beard Road.  Michael Coon replied that was correct and noted that when designing a new road all vertical curves and K values were required to meet all related AASHTO standards, however, because Beard Road was an existing roadway traffic on the road was independent of cars stopped at the intersection and looking up and down Beard Road.  James Nordstrom noted that to rectify the issue with the existing crest it would need to be graded down which would create impacts to property on the northerly side of Beard Road.  Michael Coon agreed and noted that lowering the crest to create an acceptable vertical curve to AASHTO standards would mean taking down the height of the road which would in turn create a different drainage pattern and impacts to abutters.  James Nordstrom asked if the proposed relocation of the intersection was to improve intersection sight distance looking left down Beard Road.  Michael Coon replied that this was correct and that in previous designs the strip that Right Way Builders was using as an access to the subdivision was hindered by the crest itself and in the most recent design the intersection had now been moved to the existing crest.  James Nordstrom asked if, regarding the new location of this intersection, a passing sight distance issue existed on Beard Road.  Michael Coon replied that it did.
        Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, asked who was being contacted regarding the easement for tree cutting.  Michael Coon replied that it was the owner of Lot #5/33, Mrs. Boyle.  Interested party Jay Marden asked if the location of the proposed intersection was the only revision to the plan or if the interior cluster lots of the proposed subdivision had also been altered.  Michael Coon replied that adjustments to the road within the subdivision had been made on the plan so that it would properly align with the proposed intersection and that the applicant’s objective at this juncture was to gain comments from the Board before any internal changes to the subdivision were considered.  Jay Marden asked if the original layout of the subdivision was unchanged.  Michael Coon replied that was the case, other than a lot line adjustment that would be needed on proposed Lot #5/50-1 and also to the upper lot on the plan.  
        Cynthia Wilson stated that she had not attended the site walk as a member of the Conservation Commission, however, Burr Tupper had done so and had provided written comments dated November 18, 2005.  She asked if any other changes had been made to the lot lines since that date.  Michael Coon referred this question to Rick Kohler as the offices of Bob Todd, LLS, were handling the subdivision aspects of the project.  Rick Kohler stated that minor changes may have been made to facilitate Steep Slopes, however, the overall layout had remained the same.  Cynthia Wilson noted that Burr Tupper had commented that many wetland areas were not marked or accurately marked, therefore, the Conservation Commission could not provide a formal comment until that was addressed and another site walk was held.  The Chairman asked who the wetland scientist was for the applicant’s project.  Rick Martin replied that Bob Todd, LLS, was the wetland scientist and believed that he had accurately marked all wetlands.  Cynthia Wilson stated that Bob Todd, LLS, was not present this evening to speak to this issue and felt that another site walk was warranted.  The Chairman asked Cynthia Wilson which areas or lots were questionable regarding wetlands.  Cynthia Wilson stated that Burr Tupper’s comments addressed several lots, namely, that Lot #5/50-14 had an insufficient definition of wetlands to allow for proper observation and that it may be necessary to redo the drainage pattern for the wetland located at the bottom of that lot.  She added that Burr Tupper had also commented that he believed Lot #’s 5/50-2, 50-3 and 50-4 were not properly flagged for wetlands and several areas could be considered wetlands that were 10 to 30’ outside the designated wetland along with evidence of running water that had not been designated for these sites.  During the site walk Burr Tupper had also noted that a backhoe digging a cellar hole on Lot #5/50-1 was generating a lot of water in that hole and subsequent runoff into the previously mentioned lots, therefore, Lot #’s 5/50-1, 50-2, 50-3, 50-4, 50-12, 50-14 and 50-15 would need to be revisited by the Conservation Commission.
        The Chairman returned to the subject of Dufresne-Henry, Inc.’s review and comments and inquired why the tree trimming near Lot #5/33 was recommended.  Mike Coon replied that the curve at the bottom of the hill in that area of Beard Road with 390’ of sight distance went off the roadway and through the right-of-way, therefore, it was suggested that several large pine trees near the road and right-of-way be removed on the other side of an existing stone wall to enhance the sight line.  The Chairman clarified that the trees were on private property and not in the Town’s right-of-way.  Michael Coon replied that was the case and that Pat Panciocco, Esq., had been in contact with the property owner, Mrs. Boyle, but was waiting until the conclusion of tonight’s meeting before pursuing that item further.   
        James Nordstrom stated that the previous plan was deficient in respect to sight distance and the revisions presented tonight addressed that issue but may cause an additional problem given the passing sight distance issue existing on Beard Road.  The Chairman noted that an ongoing issue was increasing the standards of Beard Road.  Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, noted that the question remained as to whether the applicant could be asked to drop the road to meet design criteria for 35 m.p.h.  He noted that obtaining easements or land on the opposite side of the road from the proposed subdivision may be able to solve the intersection and the stopping sight distance issues which would be preferable to the Road Committee.  James Nordstrom asked Roch Larochelle if he thought Dufresne-Henry, Inc., would offer the same recommendation, noting that he believed it would be up to the Road Committee to work to resolve these issues.  Roch Larochelle replied that he thought it likely but wondered if the applicant could be asked to fix a preexisting condition when they met the requirement for intersection sight distance.  The Chairman noted that the applicant was responsible for making their proposed intersection safe.  Rick Martin replied that he believed he had accomplished this while the Chairman was referring to through traffic on Beard Road and not traffic that would be traveling from the intersection onto Beard Road.
        The Chairman asked Michael Coon what input the applicant was seeking form the Board this evening.  Michael Coon replied that the applicant wished to gain assurance from the Board that, given the new proposed location of the intersection, it was appropriate to proceed with the lot line boundary adjustment for Lot #5/50-1.  The Chairman replied that the applicant needed to consider two major items, firstly, that the intersection be made safe which involved the existing grades on Beard Road and, secondly, the ability to achieve proper sight distance which involved the purchase of additional land.  Michael Coon stated that the applicant’s portion of the intersection met every safety standard while it was through traffic that did not which was a preexisting condition.  The Chairman noted that the proposed subdivision would introduce more traffic into that intersection.  Dennis Robinson, Esq., noted that the subdivision’s traffic should not be considered through traffic and that the applicant should not be expected to fix every preexisting problem with Beard Road.  The Chairman noted that the traffic generated by the proposed subdivision would add to an already unsafe situation.  Dennis Robinson, Esq., did not believe that there was evidence to suggest that placing the intersection in its proposed location would add to an existing unsafe condition. 
        Cynthia Wilson asked if a Traffic Impact Study had been done for the new proposed location of the intersection.  Michael Coon noted that a Traffic Impact Study had been done prior to this revision but generally looked at daily traffic counts rather than a road’s geometry.  James Nordstrom asked if the property being negotiated ran the length of Beard Road that involved the improvement issues at hand.  Michael Coon replied that it did.  Cynthia Wilson clarified that the owners were heirs of the Edwards family and resided in Massachusetts.
        James Nordstrom reiterated that the applicant had solved one issue but potentially created another.  Mike Ryan, Esq., stated that he represented the abutters of Beard Road and asked if the subdivision proposed duplexes or single family homes as the answer to that question affected traffic impacts.  The Chairman noted that the applicant was not required to answer that question because under the Subdivision Regulations he was allowed to create 24 residential lots which could accommodate either type of structure.  Mike Ryan, Esq., disagreed as single family versus duplexes meant 24 versus 48 residences.  The Chairman explained that unless a covenant existed on the property that stated only single family residences were allowed it must be assumed that the lots could be maximized to what Zoning allowed.  Roch Larochelle noted that the last Traffic Impact Study done for this application assumed single family homes and if duplexes were being considered then another Traffic Study should be performed as traffic would essentially be doubled from the subdivision.  Rick Martin thought that a Traffic Study had been done for a duplex proposal.  The Coordinator clarified that a Traffic Study revised in May, 2005, was based on an over age 55 subdivision with 190 total trips per day.  Christine Quirk noted that a duplex subdivision not specified as over age 55 would generate more trips than 190.  The Chairman calculated that a 42 unit duplex subdivision at the standard of 10 trips per day, per unit, would equal 420 trips which far exceeded 190.  Rick Martin asked for clarification on the difference in calculations.  Roch Larochelle explained that single family homes generated more trips per day because of the potential for school aged residents that would require more trips due to school, sports, etc.  He added that if this was the case the Road Committee would need to consider another Traffic Study.  Michael Coon stated that from an engineering perspective of proposed Pasture Road the design geometry was based on speed limits, therefore, from a design perspective he did not feel that the traffic loads being contemplated could affect what the applicant could or could not do.  Roch Larochelle agreed but added that if a recommendation was brought forth that the existing vertical curves and gradings on Beard Road needed to be improved then the proposed intersection would have to be redesigned.  Michael Coon clarified that if the intersection was moved back to its previously proposed location then the applicant would be required to reduce the K value on the existing crest on Beard Road.  Roch Larochelle replied that with that scenario the issue would return to its original argument that inadequate intersection sight distance was provided.  Michael Coon noted that currently there was no adequate stopping sight distance at the crest of the hill on Beard Road so regardless of the intersection’s location any improvement on Beard Road would require a reduction in the current K value.  Roch Larochelle summarized that admittedly, by the intersection’s current proposed location, the applicant had attempted to maximize his intersection sight distance without having to make impacting improvements to Beard Road.
        Rick Martin stated that he was frustrated by the fact that he had attempted to make strides to achieve 390’ of sight distance which he was 40’ short of by the original design only to be told this evening that traffic up and down Beard Road was now the main issue.  The Chairman explained that the proposed subdivision traffic would double the current loads on Beard Road which was something that needed to be considered.  Rick Martin did not think that this was a valid argument against the intersection’s design and location.  Kim Burkhamer wished to note that although Beard Road was somewhat unsafe now it would become more unsafe with the introduction of the proposed intersection and increased traffic loads.  Dennis Robinson, Esq., noted that Beard Road currently saw 236 trips per day and felt that a decision to limit the amount of additional traffic by what type of housing would be proposed in the subdivision would not affect impacts to Beard Road.  The Chairman disagreed and noted that a duplex subdivision versus an over age 55 community versus a single family home community would have very different impacts traffic wise.  Rick Martin stated that he was attempting to work with the Town to get his application approved and wished to clarify that the Chairman was alluding to a scenario whereby if he placed a covenant on the subdivision that stated only single family homes would be allowed he would not have to make improvements to Beard Road.  The Chairman replied that he was not suggesting a covenant but noting that single family homes were likely to generate half as many trips out of the subdivision as proposed conventional duplexes.  Dennis Robinson, Esq., stated that the unknown factor was how the rest of Beard Road would be developed in the future and in light of this condition being removed as part of this plan then this applicant was solving any potential traffic issues for all of Beard Road which seemed intrinsically unfair.  The Chairman replied that he might agree with Dennis Robinson, Esq.’s, comments if the impacts that would be generated by the proposed intersection did not exist.  Dennis Robinson, Esq., stated that he did not feel the traffic situation on Beard Road would be made any worse with the introduction of this intersection because traffic from the subdivision would end at the crest on Beard Road and be turning onto proposed Pasture Road.  He noted that it was the through traffic on Beard Road that had the existing issue.  The Chairman asked what the opposite sight distance looking into the location of the proposed intersection on Beard Road.  Michael Coon replied that cars traveling along Beard Road would be able to see cars sitting at the proposed Pasture Road intersection with sight lines of 390’.  The Chairman asked how much of a height change in Beard Road would make the passing sight distance issue optimal.  Michael Coon replied that in order to achieve a K value of 29 versus the existing K values of 10 to 20 the vertical curvature would need to go from 150’ to 350’ which would require approximately 3’ of cut and impacts to drainage, vegetation and an existing stone wall.  He noted that with the acquisition of Lot #5/50-1 the applicant had incorporated full standard depths and widths with 3:1 side slopes to stabilize the area for all seasons.
        The Chairman asked for comments from the Board.  Don Duhaime stated that there were similar problems with the plan revision as there were at prior meetings.  Roch Larochelle reiterated that at a prior work session held with the Board of Selectmen it was stated that leaving the subdivision as an age 55 and older community would decrease the traffic impacts onto Beard Road and if the scenario was now being considered as duplexes with no age restrictions then he felt the Traffic Impact Study should be redone.  Michael Coon asked if it would be advisable to move forward with drainage reports for the plan revisions with the additional traffic coming into play when Beard Road improvements were addressed using a rational nexus calculation.  The Chairman thought it very relevant that the type of housing was a pivotal point for the plan.  Rick Martin reiterated his point that the proposed intersection was not a substandard design and that through traffic on Beard Road should not be his concern.  He added that he had provided 390’ of sight distance and it should not be his total responsibility to fix all of Beard Road when land on the road was likely to be further subdivided in the future by other applicants.  The Chairman replied that future subdivision along Beard Road was the Board’s assumption also and that there should be some compromise possible at the area of contention.  He added that the major issue was the sight distance with the trees noted by the Town Engineer.  Rick Martin replied that the lot owner, Mrs. Boyle, was onboard with the proposed tree cutting and that his attorney had been in contact with her.  The Chairman stated that he was not aware that Mrs. Boyle had reached an agreement with the applicant which resolved that issue.  He added that the other concern was the passing sight distance at the crest and felt that Rick Martin did share some of the responsibility for making it a safer situation.  The Coordinator explained that a formula had been run for offsite improvements based on the entire length of Beard Road, however, the crux of the calculation was dependent on the number of units proposed in the subdivision, therefore, the fair share amount could not be known until the type of subdivision was confirmed.  Rick Martin returned to the subject of 420 trips per day and noted that he proposed two intersections with the first being located near NH Route 77, therefore, half of the predicted traffic was less likely to travel the length of Beard Road which was challenging with its dirt base.  
        Jay Marden felt that an answer to whether the subdivision proposed now was an over 55, single family or duplex community was necessary as a Traffic Study would be dependent on it.  Roch Larochelle paralleled Jay Marden’s thought by asking what portion of the fair share calculation would be based on construction costs because if it was not based on a high enough value the overage would be borne by the Taxpayers.  Dennis Robinson, Esq., felt that the Town would have an interest in substandard road safety at some point anyway.  Roch Larochelle wondered if the fair share cost could be put towards improvements near the proposed intersection and stressed his concern that the cost figure needed to be high enough.  Don Duhaime noted that if it was determined that Beard Road needed to be lowered 3’ then proposed Pasture Road would need to be re-designed, therefore, why not have these improvements done now and arrange a way for Right Way Builders to recoup a portion of that cost at a later date from future subdivision developers.  Rick Martin stated that he did not think he should have to carry the entire cost for an indeterminable amount of time.  Don Duhaime pointed out that it would be foolish to have to redesign the road at a later date.  Michael Coon noted that if the Road Agent decided to upgrade Beard Road in the future it could compromise any improvements made now.  The Chairman asked what could be done in the area of Beard Road in question that would not require moving an existing stone wall or rebuilding the road.  Rick Martin replied that his initial plan took the road down 3’ with adjustments to Lot 5/50-1’s driveway (owned by Tom Clapp), addressed the K value, however, netted a 1:1 slope and even though shaley ledge was present this did not satisfy the Road Committee.  He added that ditch lines were also feasible but sight visibility was short 40’ (at 350’).  Rick Martin noted that since dealing with the sight distance issue he felt he was now being asked to cut the road down.  The Chairman wished to note to Rick Martin that a similar scenario existed in Town with Carriage and Susan Roads and those developers were also being made to adjust the roads to safer standards.  Michael Coon noted that the original issue with sight distance being short by 40’ was why the applicant acquired Lot #5/50-1.  Rick Martin added that he was hoping for concessions and that they may in turn be able to take some K value out of the road if the Town was willing to negotiate giving up 30-40’ of sight visibility at the lower corner in question.  The Chairman clarified that the applicant owned property on the south side of Beard Road where the K value issues occurred.  Michael Coon concurred and noted the areas on the plan.  He pointed out the areas of contention where an existing stone wall existed which would need to be removed and replaced to accommodate a full ditchline.  The Chairman asked the width of the Town’s right-of-way in that area.  Michael Coon replied that it varied between 30 to 35’.  The Chairman suggested a 50’ road bed with the applicant giving the Town 15’.  Rick Martin replied that he was giving the Town 15’ on one side and could not shift the road to the other side because it would compromise sight visibility.  Michael Coon added that drainage issues would also be compromised if this was done.  James Nordstrom asked if the crest were lowered 3’ how it affected the intersection’s sight distance to the west.  Michael Coon replied that he could not give an exact increment but noted that as the road would drop some of the upper vantage point would also decrease.  He recalled that Rick Martin had mentioned that 350-360’ of sight distance was likely with such a scenario.
        The Chairman stated that if standard lots were being proposed then the Traffic Study would need to reflect that.  Rick Martin replied that he had the calculations for a duplex, age 55 and older community which were higher than if a single family subdivision was proposed.  The Chairman interjected that a single family would generate more traffic.  Rick Martin asked if he did this Traffic Study if the intersection would be accepted as a safe design.  Jay Marden did not think the Board could act until they were assured what type of subdivision the plan intended.  The Chairman clarified that if the applicant could not commit to that answer then the traffic numbers would need to reflect standard duplex lots and that the Board’s numbers for the fair share calculation would need to be altered to reflect the same.

        James Nordstrom 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 April 25, 2006, at 8:00 p.m.  Don Duhaime seconded the  motion and it PASSED unanimously.    

        At 9:10 p.m. the Planning Board took a 15 minute break.

GAGNON, NORMAN & BARBARA
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: Laurel Lane
Tax Map/Lot #12/110
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Rick Kohler of Robert Todd Land Use Surveyors and the applicants Norman and Barbara Gagnon.  No abutters or interested parties were present.
        Rick Kohler stated that the site totaled 5.1 acres and the proposed subdivision would bring Lot #12/110 to 2.5 acres and Lot #12/110-1 to 2.25 acres.  He added that the wetlands were delineated by the offices of Robert Todd, LLS, along with the test pits.  Rick Kohler stated that waivers had been requested in writing to the requirements of the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact studies and the Site Specific Soils survey.  He noted that there was an existing house on the corner of Lot #12/110.
        The Coordinator stated that it was unclear on the plan whether disturbance of critical areas would occur on the proposed subdivided lot and if this was the case then a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would be required.  She added that if no disturbance was proposed then that would need to be noted on the Subdivision Plan.  Rick Kohler replied that because there were no significant slopes or wetlands on the proposed subdivided lot there was no intention that critical areas would be disturbed.  The Chairman commented that the proposed lot looked less challenging than the existing lot from which it would be subdivided.  Rick Kohler agreed that the proposed lot had a higher elevation, less wetlands and was deeper from its frontage to the wetlands with the proposed building site considered to be centered with the existing right-of-way.  He noted that a slight jog in the lot line was intended to facilitate the existing driveway on the site.  James Nordstrom asked if Rick Kohler was aware of any critical areas on the new proposed lot.  Rick Kohler replied that there were none that he was aware of.  James Nordstrom stated that in viewing the plan he agreed and that this should be noted on the plan for clarification.  Rick Kohler stated that he would add this note to the plan.

        James Nordstrom MOVED based on the rationale provided by Bob Todd, LLS,to
        grant the waivers as captioned in a letter by Bob Todd, LLS, on February 3, 2006, for the requirements of the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact studies and the Site Specific Soils Survey.  Don Duhaime    seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Norman and Barbara Gagnon, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: Laurel Lane, Tax Map/Lot #12/110, Residential-       Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

        The Board determined that a site walk was not warranted.  The Chairman asked the Coordinator if there were any other outstanding issues with the application.  The Coordinator replied that a $25.00 Driveway Permit fee remained outstanding, however, that its payment could be made a condition of the application’s approval.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision, Land of Norman and      Barbara Gagnon, Tax Map/Lot #110, McCurdy Road and Laurel Lane, subject to:

        CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
        1.   Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat,                   including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
        2.   Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD;
        3.   Submission of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application including the Town Driveway Permit fee, or recording of documents at the HCRD.
        The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be June 30, 2006,confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action from the Board.  Should compliance not e confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for      extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
        Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.


DUKE PHILIP J. & HOLLIS A. (OWNER)
STRATEGIC CONTRACTING, LLC (APPLICANT)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/4 Lots
Location: McCurdy & Joe English Roads
Tax Map/Lot #11/77
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was Ray Shea, LLS, who represented the applicant.  Also present were owners Phil and Holly Duke and applicant Rob Starace of Strategic Consulting, LLC.  An abutter present was Tony Hall.
        Ray Shea, LLS, stated that the site totaled 9 acres and was located on the eastern side of Joe English Road with 1,050’ feet of frontage and the southern side of McCurdy Road with 400’ of frontage.  He added that the applicant proposed to subdivide the site into 4 lots ranging in size from just over 2 acres to 2.6 acres.  Ray Shea, LLS, noted that 3 driveways were proposed off Joe English Road and one off McCurdy Road.  He added that existing structures on the site were in the process of being removed.
        The Chairman stated that two 200’ squares should be on the corner lots.  Ray Shea, LLS, replied that he was not aware that two squares were still the requirement and would adjust the plan.  The Chairman asked about the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.  Ray Shea, LLS, replied that silt fencing was proposed on the site when the plans were drawn a month and half prior and he was not sure what the Regulations would require after the Town vote.  The Coordinator explained that the applicant needed to verify whether or not critical areas existed on site.  She added that the Subdivision Regulation required that a stormwater management plan be prepared when three or more building lots were proposed although this requirement could be waived if building envelopes were added.  Ray Shea, LLS, replied that only one of the lots was questionable by that rationale and was dependent on how it was measured since certain slopes slightly exceeded 15%.  The Coordinator noted that there was a required buffer zone for poorly drained and very poorly drained soils according to Subdivision Regulation Section V-V and that some details may have changed since the vote in favor of amending Steep Slopes.  Ray Shea, LLS, stated that he would review these items and make appropriate adjustments to the plan.  
        The Chairman felt that a site walk was warranted given the environmental condition of the site.  Ray Shea, LLS, reiterated that the site was in the process of being cleaned.  The Chairman stated that the application could not be considered complete due to changes in the Subdivision Regulations that prompted revisions to the plan.  He added that although it was the Board’s prerogative to therefore reject the application he felt that a site walk could be scheduled and the issue of completeness taken up at the next scheduled meeting even though site walks were not generally scheduled for incomplete applications.  A site walk was then scheduled for Saturday, April 8, 2006, at 8:30 a.m.  The Chairman asked that wetlands on the site be clearly marked.
        Abutter Tony Hall stated that he was in attendance out of curiosity regarding the proposed subdivision and added that Ray Shea, LLS, had also shown him the plan right before the meeting was held this evening.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Philip J. and Hollis A. Duke        (Owner) and Strategic Contracting, LLC (Applicant), Major Subdivision, 4 Lots,  Location: McCurdy & Joe English Roads, Tax Map/Lot #11/77, Residential-Agricultural     “R-A” District, to April 25, 2006, at 8:30 p.m.  Christine Quirk seconded the motion and                it PASSED unanimously.

MATHESON, WILLIAM R., IV & BIANCA J.
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR
Farm & Garden Tractor Sales & Service Facility
Location: 506 Mont Vernon Road
Tax Map/Lot #14/116-2
Commercial “Com” District

        The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant William Matheson.
        The Chairman asked if the outstanding fee of $49.00 for compliance certifieds had been paid and if As-Built Plans had been submitted.  The Coordinator replied that both items had been addressed.  The bond for loam and seeding was submitted by the applicant and the amount agreed upon with the Board was $1,500.00.

                James Nordstrom MOVED to confirm that Bianca J. & William R. Matheson, IV has complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to construct and operate a farm and garden tractor sales and service facility on property located at 506 Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/116-2 and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department, subject to:

                CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
        1.   Submission of a security in the amount of $1500.00 and in the form of check to cover the cost of loam & seeding and installation of the gate & fence as shown on the plans dated 9/22/03, most recently revised 3/15/06.

        Confirmation of the satisfactory completion of these items shall be determined by at
        least three (3) members of the Planning Board and shall not require an additional             hearing.
        The deadline date for completion of the site improvements shall be July 1, 2006.
        Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
        
MATHESON, WILLIAM R., IV & BIANCA J.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Truck & Auto Repair
Location: 506 Mont Vernon Road
Tax Map/Lot #14/116-2
Commercial “Com” District

        The Chairman read the public hearing notice.  Present in the audience was the applicant William Matheson.  No abutters or interested parties were present.  The Chairman asked if the applicant’s special exception had any conditions attached to it by the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA).  William Matheson replied it did not.  The Chairman then asked for a description of the display area intended for vehicular sales.  William Matheson replied that the display area had not changed for what was approved on the Site Plan.  The Chairman asked if the number of vehicles on display would be limited to a certain number.  William Matheson replied that he did not expect to have more than 6 vehicles in the display area at any given time excluding tractors and service vehicles.  The Chairman then inquired about customer parking spaces.   William Matheson stated that 8 spaces would be provided including one handicapped space.  The Chairman asked if the working bay would service cars and trucks.  William Matheson replied that the 50’ X 80’ building would be used primarily for working on trucks and equipment and had two doors at the front and a 9’ X 9’ door in the back which was why he felt he did not require more than 8 parking spaces for customers.  The Chairman stated that he did not feel the applicant needed to revise his plan in any way.  He asked if there was exterior lighting at the back of the building.  William Matheson replied that there was one exterior light which was on only when they were working.  The Chairman asked if the vehicle display area was in the same location as the equipment display area and if it was visible from the road.  William Matheson replied this was the case and the display area was more visible traveling north than south.  He added that there was nothing displayed down by the road.
        James Nordstrom wished to clarify that the applicant was already approved for lawn and tractor sales and wanted to add the sale of trucks to his site plan.  The Chairman explained that although the applicant had not proposed selling trucks as part of his original site plan it had been part of the original concept and discussed as a future endeavor as he transitioned into small engine repair.  He noted the example of the wash pad on the plan which was on the original plan an intended for trucks, therefore, the original plan alluded to this future prospect.  The Chairman further noted that the only difference involved the proposal to sell vehicles on site also which the ZBA had approved him for.  William Matheson stated that his State inspection license had triggered the requirement for his Site Plan to include that approval.  James Nordstrom clarified that the special exception granted by the ZBA in 2004 covered that issue.  The Chairman replied that was correct.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Non-Residential Site Plan Review application for Bianca J. & William R. Matheson, IV, plans dated 9/22/03, most recently revised 3/15/06, to operate a vehicular sales and repair facility from the existing approved site for a farm and garden tractor sales and service facility at 506 Mont Vernon Road, Tax   Map/Lot #14/116-2 and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department, subject to:

        CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
        1.   Submission of the security and completion of the site improvements as agreed upon for the prior application’s compliance hearing for the farm and garden tractor sales & service facility on the same site, Planning Board File No. N2003-08.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MARCH 28, 2006

1.      Approval of minutes of February 14, 2006, with or without changes, distributed at the February 28, 2006, meeting. (No Copies)

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of February 14, 2006, as written.          Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

2.      Endorsement of a Condex Site Plan for Friendly Haven Farm, Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/29, 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.  The same was determined for item #3.

3.      Endorsement of a Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Right Way Builders, Inc., & Ronald and Marilyn L. Sizemore, Tax Map/Lot #5/29-1, Beard Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

4.      Endorsement of adoption of Amendments to the Town of New Boston Subdivision     Regulations by the New Boston Planning Board members.

        The Coordinator explained that until certifications for the adoption of Amendments to the Subdivision and Site Plan Regulations were signed and forwarded to the Town Clerk those regulations were not considered in force.  The Chairman and Vice Chairman signed the Amendments as representatives of the Planning Board and because one more signature was required for majority status the Coordinator stated that she would obtain this from one of the three members not in attendance this evening later in the week.
        
5.      Endorsement of adoption of Amendments to the Town of New Boston Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations by the New Boston Planning Board members.

        Addressed with item #4.


6.      Driveway Permit Application for R.J. Moreau Communities, LLC, Swanson Road, Tax         Map/Lot #6/32-30, for the Board’s action.

        The Planning Assistant explained that this Driveway Permit had been delayed because the Board had requested engineered plans at a prior meeting which had since been received at the Planning Department.  The Board reviewed the engineered plans.  The Chairman commented that the driveway was proposed at a 10% grade which was the maximum allowance.  James Nordstrom stated that the driveway appeared to meet all requirements according to the engineered plans provided.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #06-004 for a
        proposed driveway, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway shall    have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road; the driveway   intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii minimum;        
and, the driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees.  A follow up certification will be required by the Board to assure that the constructed driveway         complies with the engineered plans provided.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it    PASSED unanimously.

7.      Driveway Permit Application for Douglas Lewis, 6 Pine Road, Tax Map/Lot #4/41,  dor the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to meeting)

        The Coordinator explained that the buyer of Lot #4/41 wished to use an existing bar way in the stonewall instead of what was approved with the subdivision.  The Chairman commented that by using the existing access way the owner was less likely to have drainage issues than with the approved driveway location.

        James Nordstrom MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #06-010 for a
        proposed driveway, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway           intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of twenty foot (20’) radii                     minimum; and, the driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90               degrees.  Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

8.Discussion, Re: retail automotive sales business, Brandon Brooks, 5 Woods Lane, Tax   Map/Lot #5/2-1.

        The Planning Assistant noted that Mr. Brooks wished to be present for this item and was not in attendance, therefore, the Board determined that the item would be discussed at a subsequent meeting.


9.      Application for Appointment received from Brandon Brooks, for the Board’s review and discussion.

        The Chairman noted that he felt it would be beneficial for anyone interested in becoming a member of the Planning Board to observe a meeting or two beforehand.

10.     A copy of a letter dated March 10, 2006, from William Drescher, Drescher &      Dokomo Attorneys, to Nicola Strong, New Boston Planning Coordinator, Re: Right Way      Builders, Tax Map/Lot #5/29, Bead Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and      discussion.

        The Coordinator explained that this item involved the condex being constructed on the former Sizemore farm by Right Way Builders, Inc.  She noted that the Site Plan would be recorded, however the floor plans would not be recorded until the building was essentially complete and once this was the case both plan numbers would be entered into a Declaration of Condominiums and the Planning Department would receive copies of all recorded documents.

11.     A copy of a memorandum received March 20, 2006, from John Bunting, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: names for new road for Douglas Hill’s subdivision, Francestown Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.

12.     A copy of a memorandum dated March 21, 2006, from Nicola Strong, Planning       Coordinator, to Peter Hogan, Chairman, New Boston Planning Board, Re: Plan the Future   for New Boston, Master Plan Meeting- Saturday, April 15, 2006, was distributed for the  Board’s information.    

        The Coordinator noted that all members of the Board should try to attend as the first preliminary draft of the Master Plan was expected to post this month.  She added that future land use topics were to be discussed.

13.     A copied memorandum received March 15, 2006, from Jeff Hudson, Re: request for  meeting with Selectmen, was distributed for the Board’s information.

        The Coordinator noted that since this memorandum was received Mr. Hudson had submitted a Subdivision Application for 7 lots on what was the old Klardie property and would be scheduling a meeting with the Board.

14a.    A copy of a memorandum dated March 21, 2006, from Nicola Strong, Planning       Coordinator, to Planning Board Members, Re: New Boston Zoning Ordinance, was    distributed for the Board’s information.


14b.    A copy of the Town of New Boston Zoning Ordinance was distributed for the Board’s information.

15.     A copy of a letter dated February 28, 2006, from Michele Brown, Planning Board  Assistant, to Steven R. & Debra Ouellette, Re: Circular Driveway, Carriage Road, Tax    Map/Lot #12/93-30, was distributed for the Board’ information.  

        The Coordinator explained that the Ouellettes had not responded to the Planning Board Assistant’s letter nor had they removed the second curb cut from their property.  She noted that another resident on Carriage Road had addressed their circular driveway issue at the Board’s request.  James Nordstrom stated that this seemed to be a code enforcement issue.  The Coordinator asked if the Building Inspector was the only individual in the Town who could apply a cease and desist order or if the Town had the authority to instruct the Highway Department to remove the additional curb cut based on a policy that was not an actual requirement in the Regulations.  The Board determined that the best course of action would be to seek Town Counsel’s opinion on the matter.

16.     A copy of an Email received March 6, 2006, from Patrick Conley, Re: Byam Road repair, was distributed for the Board’s information.

        The Coordinator explained that Kim Burkhamer had forwarded this Email to the Planning Board and that the original copy was given to the Selectmen as it was an issue that needed their review.  Christine Quirk stated that this topic had not yet been discussed at a Selectmen meeting, however, she was familiar with it as it was in her “read” folder.

17.     Daily road inspection report dated February 7, 2006, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re:     Hutchinson Lane, was distributed for the Board’s information.

18.     Daily road inspection report dated February 8, 2006, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re:     Daylily Lane, was distributed for the Board’s information.

19.     Read File:  Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Concord, Re: installation of a wireless telecommunication facility.       

20.     Read File:  Memorandum received March 15, 2006, from David J. Preece, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, Re: New Hampshire Transportation Business Plan.       

21.     The minutes of February 28, 2006, were distributed for approval at the meeting of April         11, 2006, with or without changes.

22a.    A copy of a memorandum dated March 21, 2006, from Nicola Strong, Planning
Coordinator, to Planning Board Members, Re: Updated Subdivision and Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations, was distributed for the Board’s information.  

22b.    Copy of Town of New Boston updated Subdivision and Non-Residential Site Plan    Review Regulations, was distributed for the Board’s information.

23.     A copy of a letter received March 22, 2006, from Gregory E. Michael, Wiggin &

        Nourie, P.A., Re: Paula R. Mason – SEFF Enterprises & Holdings, LLC, Lot #26,   Foxberry Drive, New Boston, NH, was distributed for the Board’s information.

        The Coordinator stated that this was a non-issue for the Board and explained that she had phoned Morgan Hollis, Esq., to learn that Paula Mason had entered into an agreement with Joe Foistner to access her lot over a piece of his property (as the 50’ strip on her lot could not accommodate a driveway) by exchanging certain slope and drainage easements.  She added that the agreement was that the driveway would be constructed from the road to the lot line, however, Paula Mason thought that the driveway would be constructed up to the house which was not yet built.  The Coordinator noted that because all easements had already been submitted this issue was not arguable by Paula Mason.

24.     Daily road inspection reports dated February 8, and 17, 2006, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Highland Hills, was distributed for the Board’s information.   
        
25.     Read File: Announcement/Agenda from David Preece, Executive Director, Southern  New Hampshire Planning Commission, Re: Affordable and Workforce Housing         Solutions, Wednesday, April 5, 2006, PSNH-Energy Park.

26.     The Coordinator stated that the Conference for the Office of Energy and Planning was to be held Saturday, April 1, 2006, and that Peter Hogan, Don Duhaime, herself and Michele Brown were attending.  She asked that if any other Board members wished to attend they were welcome to carpool and meet at the Town Hall at 7:30 a.m.

27.     The Coordinator stated that she had received an easement plan that the Board was not aware of regarding Swanson Road and explained that when construction began on Lot #’s 6/32-22 and 6/32-23, disturbance beyond the original slope and drainage easements noted on the approved plan occurred, therefore, this area was extended per the recommendations of Seth Potter and Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., and to be noted to the Board on the Site Plan.  James Nordstrom noted that this change would need to be recorded.  The Coordinator stated that it would be recorded with the deed.

        The Chairman and Vice Chairman (in the Secretary’s absence) endorsed the plans noted in item #’s 2 & 3.

        At 10:40 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn.  Christine Quirk seconded the   motion and it PASSED unanimously.

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