New Boston, NH - Planning Board Minutes 05/09/2006

Planning Board Minutes 05/09/2006

Minutes of the Planning Board – May 9, 2006

The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Bob Furey; ex-officio Christine Quirk; and, alternates Don Duhaime and Douglas Hill. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.

Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Cynthia Wilson, Burr Tupper, Sarah Hogan, Brandy Mitroff, Damien Martineau, Jonathan Willard, Brian Pratt, Dana Moody, Bruce Marshall, Esq., Donna Mombourquette, Kevin Short, Thomas Huot, Craig Francisco, LLS, Tris Gordon, Bob Huettner, Sharon Huettner, Paul Morin, Janet White, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Charles Noe, Linda Pothier, Lynn Strong, and Kristine Filteau.

The Chairman stated that the first matter of business this evening would be to elect officers of the Planning Board.

James Nordstrom MOVED to elect Peter Hogan as Chairman of the Planning Board. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Christine Quirk MOVED to elect James Nordstrom as Vice Chairman of the Planning Board. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

James Nordstrom MOVED to elect Bob Furey as Secretary of the Planning Board. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Damien Martineau was present in the audience along with his contractor. Although not scheduled on the agenda this evening, he wished to update the Board regarding his plans for what was the former Shipwrecks Restaurant located on NH Route 13 after River Road. He noted that when he last spoke to the Board he was considering renovating the existing structure on site and since that discussion had been advised by several contractors that it would be better to level the building and rebuild. The Chairman stated that a similar footprint would be required. Damien Martineau replied that Sandford Survey and Engineering had drawn conceptual plans which showed a new structure with slightly less square footage that could be proposed which overlapped a drawing of the existing structure. The Chairman asked if Damien Martineau would include a cellar for the new structure on his plan. Damien Martineau replied that he would do so for efficiency purposes. He added that the Fire Department had expressed an interest in using the existing structure for training if it was slated for removal, however, he wanted the Board’s assurance that any grandfathered status that existed currently for the existing structure would be preserved in terms of setbacks, parking permits, etc. Damien Martineau noted that while he planned to maintain the same 44 seat area for the restaurant he would propose a different business plan that included informal dining, quick service carry out, and off site catering services. Christine Quirk asked if a second floor was planned for the new structure. Damien Martineau replied that he would like to propose a pitched roof that would accommodate an administrative office, however, not be on a full second floor. He added that he planned to have the new structure designed by an architect so that the venting and other mechanisms now visible on the existing structure would be on the back side of the roof and offer a more attractive appearance.

Bob Furey wondered what the Board could do to send a signal to the State that Mr. Martineau did not need to reapply for new parking permits. Christine Quirk did not think that the parking spaces would be overseen by the State. James Nordstrom agreed and noted that the State’s jurisdiction was only at the driveway entrance to the site and not the parking areas. Damien Martineau stated that an architect he had spoken with was concerned about the curb cut-outs on the site which appeared non-existent and that he also might wish to change the flow of traffic in and out of the parking lot. He asked if this was an item that the Board would need to review. The Chairman replied that it was and that the State would also have input as the site was located on a State road. Damien Martineau asked if he could eliminate such issues by leaving the flow of traffic as it was currently. The Chairman replied that this would be the case and noted that the existing business sign acted as a divider for entrance and exit patterns into the lot. Damien Martineau mentioned that he would not propose moving that sign as it crossed a State easement line and his architect advised him that it should be preserved in the event that the road was ever planned for widening because the State could take that area. Christine Quirk agreed that the area of the business sign was better left unrevised.

Damien Martineau stated that he was penciled in to present his plan to the Board on June 27, 2006, but did not know if he would need something in writing from the Board that stated he would be allowed to rebuild a structure in the same area of the existing one after he engaged the Fire Department in its demolition. The Chairman replied that maintaining the footprint in relation to any expansion of use was the Board’s main concern as well as aesthetics. Damien Martineau noted that this was his objective. He noted that he understood the limitations of the property which was why he wished to maintain the 44 seat allowance but would opt for high grade disposable dinnerware versus china and more efficient restaurant equipment to limit water usage for the septic system.

Damien Martineau asked if the meeting minutes would suffice as confirmation from the Board that they supported a demolition and rebuild of the structure in the existing footprint. The Chairman replied that the minutes were accurate and would support that sentiment. Mr. Martineau’s contractor stated that they were looking for the assurance that the current 41’ X 52’ footprint was an acceptable measure to provide the architect when redrawing the new structure. The Chairman asked if there were any unusual jogs in the measurement. The contractor replied that the new structure would be approximately 2,000 square feet and the existing jogs would be removed with the rebuild. Damien Martineau added that Ray Shea of Sandford Survey had told him that the new structure would be slightly smaller in size than what existed currently even though some additions made over time to the existing structure had not been applied for. The Chairman agreed that certain additions to the existing structure were not recorded, however, the Board would accept the same standard measure for the new structure/footprint as what existed currently. Damien Martineau thanked the Board for their time.

WILLARD, JONATHAN & JESSICA

Submission of Application/Public Hearing

NRSPR/Private School

Location: 20 River Road

Tax Map/Lot #18/20

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Jonathan Willard. No abutters or interested parties were present.

Jonathan Willard stated that not much had changed on the plan since the last meeting with the Board. He noted that he had updated certain drawings on the plan according to the Planning Department’s review and comments. Jonathan Willard stated that the traffic flow proposed was still a one way pattern and that the New Boston Central School had agreed to allow access onto their private drive for access to the proposed preschool. He added that word was received from Jim Falicon that the State would approve the septic design which included an alternative septic system much like the one approved for the law office across the street from the site which was of minimal disturbance environmentally. The Chairman asked if this alternative septic system would be constructed or if the applicant was demonstrating that it could be constructed if needed in the future. Jonathan Willard replied that he was proposing the septic system’s feasibility and would most likely attempt to have it built the following year pending the plan’s approval and if he had the funds available. The Chairman then asked if the existing septic system would be used in conjunction with the proposed one or if it would be abandoned. Jonathan Willard replied that he would use the two existing tanks that were in place plus another 1,000 gallon tank along with the alternative two compartment system and a new leach field.

Jonathan Willard noted that he had recently learned they would need to obtain a community well permit which they were in the process of securing as it was required for State Septic Approval. The Chairman asked the location of the existing well and its output. Jonathan Willard noted the well’s location on the plan and added that he was unsure of the output as only the water quality not flow was required to be checked. He added that the Coordinator had requested upon her review of the plan that the existing and proposed fencing be better differentiated and he noted their designations on the current plan. Jonathan Willard stated that all exterior lighting on the plan was existing and would remain. The Chairman stated that a plan note should state that the proposed arrival and dismissal times would not compete with those of the New Boston Central School. Jonathan Willard replied that such a note was on the plan which read: “Parcel is benefited by an access agreement to use the private School drive and for a new driveway to access the site at the rear of the property. Property owners have worked with the School administration to ensure that traffic onsite will not interfere with the normal operations of the New Boston Central School. The rear access will be chained off to ensure no traffic can access the property when the preschool is closed and onsite residential traffic is not subject to one way flow”. The Chairman then asked if signs or arrows would be on site to direct the flow of traffic and not allow any entrance from NH Route 13. Jonathan Willard replied that

they had planned that the parents of children attending the preschool would adhere to the

requirements for drop off and pick-up traffic patterns that were requested off them so that site signage would not be needed. Douglas Hill agreed that parents of the preschoolers were likely to do what was asked of them regarding traffic patterns to and from the preschool.

The Chairman stated that it appeared all issues had been addressed other than the pending State Septic Approval and community well permit. James Nordstrom noted that there was an outstanding fee on the application. Jonathan Willard stated that he did not have his checkbook with him this evening but would submit a check for that fee to the Planning Department in the upcoming week. Bob Furey asked for clarification of snow storage during the winter months and if the Road Agent and Central School were agreeable to how this would be addressed. Jonathan Willard replied that snow storage would be next to the playground area of the proposed preschool and any overflow would be placed on the other side of the picket fence noted on the plan. He added that the Central School currently plowed their snow up to the paved area of their private drive which went beyond the proposed preschool’s access point and were also working on having the entire road plowed including the dirt portion as this was their emergency egress. Bob Furey asked if the snow banks created by plowing at the proposed preschool would hinder any plowing efforts by the Central School. Jonathan Willard replied that it would not as the snow storage would be on the preschool’s property.

Christine Quirk MOVED to adjourn the application of Jonathan and Jessica Willard, NRSPR/Private School, Location: 20 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #18/20, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, to May 23, 2006, at 8:30 p.m. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 9, 2006

1. Approval of minutes of April 11, 2006, with or without changes, distributed at the April 25, 2006, meeting. (No Copies)

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of April 11, 2006, as written. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

2. Discussion, Re: Gagnon driveway and plan revision, Tax Map/Lot#12/110-1, Laurel Lane.

The Coordinator explained that the Gagnon’s proposed driveway did not have the required sight distance and, therefore, would need to be relocated. She asked if because the subdivision plan for this site had never been recorded if the Board preferred to see revised plans also. The Coordinator noted that if this were the case the Gagnons would need to reopen a contract with their surveyor at their cost for an issue that was not entirely their fault. She asked if, as an alternative, the Board wished to consider treating the issue as if the plan had been recorded and required that the driveway location be moved which would require a new driveway permit. The Coordinator added that the Road Agent’s check on the driveway had caused the delay in the plan being recorded. Christine Quirk noted that she had spoken with the Town Administrator regarding four driveways in Town that had gone unchecked and that the Road Agent had been called in to the Town Administrator’s office as a result. She added that the Road Agent had stated to Burton Reynolds that he had spoken to the Planning Department regarding the matter and assured them he would address the driveways. The Planning Assistant stated that the Road Agent had only acknowledged his delay in checking the driveways and had offered nothing else. James Nordstrom asked if a new Driveway Permit had been prepared. The Coordinator replied there had not. Douglas Hill wondered if the sight distance from the proposed driveway had been physically measured or if it was visually estimated. Don Duhaime noted that if a tree in the right-of-way were removed 200’ of sight distance might be achievable. Douglas Hill agreed that the measure would come close. James Nordstrom asked how far back from the edge of pavement the sight distance was being scrutinized, as that would make a difference. Douglas Hill replied that he was basing his suggestion more upon the fact that a curve existed on Laurel Lane near the proposed driveway’s entrance and removing the tree in question would aid that part of the sight distance scenario. Don Duhaime suggested that the driveway could be viewed on the upcoming Saturday as the Board had site walks scheduled in that vicinity. The Chairman stated that he would like the Gagnon’s to offer an alternative proposal in addition to the current one for the Board’s consideration. James Nordstrom noted that there were many good locations for a driveway on the Gagnon’s lot. The Chairman asked if the house on the Gagnon’s lot had been constructed. James Nordstrom replied that it was not because the plan was not yet recorded and the question posed by the Coordinator was whether the Board would require a revised plan to accommodate a changed driveway location. The Chairman asked if a hand amendment to the plan could be accepted by the Board. The Coordinator replied that it could not.

The Chairman stated that it was ultimately the applicant’s responsibility to provide a plan that proposed a driveway which met the Town’s requirements, not the Road Agent’s. James Nordstrom summarized that the burden was on an applicant to comply with Town regulations. He added that the Road Agent had been aware of the sight distance issue from the proposed driveway for some time. The Chairman noted that the applicant could have checked into the matter sooner and did not. James Nordstrom stated that the applicant’s existing driveway was 15’ from the proposed driveway and while the existing driveway had ample sight distance the proposed one had to deal with the existing curve on Laurel Lane and some large trees in the right-of-way. He thought it might have been an easy mistake to assume that the proposed driveway would not have any sight distance issues. Bob Furey asked who prepared the plan. The Coordinator replied that Bob Todd, LLS’, office prepared the plan. The Chairman felt that the applicant’s plan should be revised. James Nordstrom stated that he understood the applicant’s frustration regarding the passage of time from the date the application was submitted but agreed that it was the applicant’s responsibility to provide a proposal that was acceptable to the Board. The Board agreed.

3. Discussion, Re: New Boston Tavern, site plan preparation.

The Chairman stated that he had misspoken at the previous Board meeting when this topic was discussed under Miscellaneous Business by stating to Jim Eggers, owner of the New Boston Tavern, that he could submit his plan under the status of a minor site plan, however, this was a commercial lot. He added that there was also no existing site plan on file with the Town. The Coordinator clarified that that no site plan was on file for the New Boston Tavern, only for the adjacent Neville Mill Hall which was approved for catering and private school. Douglas Hill assumed that some type of grandfathered status existed as related to Zoning. James Nordstrom replied that this would be the case as long as no expansion of the existing structures occurred. The Coordinator added that this was why the applicant would propose a covered walkway to link the restaurant with Neville Mill Hall which would only necessitate an increase in parking spaces. She further added that Mr. Eggers had mentioned to her that he was preparing his site plan using the contour information on the flood plain maps when he graded out the parking area and piece together the composites he had available to create his site plan. The Chairman reiterated that he had stated this would be acceptable when the discussion occurred at the last meeting, however, this could not be the case as there were no recorded plans on file. Douglas Hill noted that nothing new was being added to the site other than an open covered walkway which would connect Neville Mill Hall to the restaurant. The Chairman added that the walkway was a method to technically carry the benefit of the restaurant’s liquor license over to Neville Mill Hall. He noted that the Board just needed a formal site plan submitted. Douglas Hill agreed, noting that the site plan should be stamped. The Chairman commented that one grandfathered usage involved the restaurant also being a residence. The Coordinator agreed that the site was multi-use and the change that would be proposed was Neville Mill Hall’s catering/preschool status to restaurant along with increasing the parking on site. She added that to do this a footprint of Neville Mill Hall was needed and a plan had to be on file. The Coordinator noted that an engineer had already done a septic design for the site previously and most of the information from that plan could probably be used to create the site plan. James Nordstrom clarified that the Eggers would need to comply with the Town’s major site plan submittal requirements. Bob Furey asked if the State septic requirements were in place. The Coordinator replied that they were. The Chairman assumed that many aspects noted under the requirements of a major site plan would be waivable for this application. James Nordstrom agreed that he expected many waiver requests.

4. Schedule a compliance site walk and extend deadline for conditions subsequent for The Rising Generation Daycare, 643 North Mast Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/49.

Christine Quirk stated that according to a letter submitted by Kristine Filteau, contractor for The Rising Generation Daycare, the site should be ready by June 5, 2006. The Board noted that notices for the 6/13/06 meeting had to be sent on 6/02/06 and according to the date presented by Kristine Filteau a site walk could not be conducted before that date. The Board also noted that they had determined that no compliance hearings would be scheduled before a satisfactory compliance inspection had taken place. James Nordstrom noted that it should be communicated to the applicant when notice letters needed to be sent to abutters. The Coordinator replied that she would confirm this with the applicants and inform the Board at their next meeting if a compliance site walk could be scheduled prior to the June 13, 2006, meeting.

James Nordstrom MOVED to extend the deadline for the conditions subsequent for The Rising Generation Daycare to August 1, 2006, Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Work Session for the Planning Board Re: Driveway Regulations

The Chairman stated that the Board had received a lot of outside input regarding the Driveway Regulations. One letter of input was submitted by the offices of Callahan, Gartrell and Gallagher. The Chairman stated that based on Town Counsel’s response to the concerns raised in this letter there was no reason why anything suggested by them should be incorporated in the Driveway Regulations. James Nordstrom asked if the potential Zoning conflict raised in the letter regarding that a driveway be located at least 75’ from an intersection was valid. The Coordinator replied that this requirement only applied to Commercial or Industrial lots and that Residential lots did not have this restriction.

The next letter of input discussed was by Todd Mueller. The Chairman stated that he disagreed with Mr. Mueller’s suggestion that the section in the draft regarding common driveways should be removed and was unsure that any of his remaining suggestions should be considered. One of these suggestions was that the Board require that proposed driveway grades be at 8% or less. Douglas Hill noted that Mr. Mueller had mentioned in his letter that the draft had recommended that driveways enter off roads with grades of 8% or less, however, no maximum was listed. Bob Furey mentioned that another comment dealt with the Board’s consideration of 10’ versus 14.5’ setbacks for sight distance calculations. Douglas Hill added that Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had also agreed with lessening the setback to that distance. The Chairman stated that the fourth paragraph of Section 9.3 of the Driveway Regulations was consistent with the Subdivision Regulations which recommended that driveways be constructed off roads whose grades were 8% or less yet no maximum requirement was stated and this was something that could be added to the draft. The Coordinator noted that the Board had not wanted to put such a requirement in the Driveway Regulations because the regulations dealt with curb cuts only, except in the case of common driveways, and the thought was that once past the Town’s right-of-way the recommendations of grade should be considered for emergency vehicle access. This in turn tied into the Subdivision Regulations which stated that no roads or driveways can enter off roads with grades greater than 8%. The Chairman asked why this was not required in Section 9.3 rather than recommended. The Coordinator replied that because the Driveway Regulations draft had been around for so long it was easy to forget why

things were listed in the first place and that if the Board was going to consider adding

“maximum” statements then that would alter a lot of language throughout the draft. She noted that grade requirements existed for new subdivisions but the Driveway Regulations were to apply to existing lots of record. The Chairman stated that the language in Section 9.3 could remain as it was.

The next discussion dealt with Section 9.4 and all season sight distance. He recalled that the Board had agreed during a prior discussion that this measure could be taken at 200’, 10’ back from the edge of pavement at an eye height of 3.9’. Douglas Hill stated that this measure seemed stricter than the State and asked if 8’ could be used in place of 10’. The Chairman thought that 8’ was still realistic for a driveway while 10’ would allow for growth. From the audience Brandy Mitroff cautioned that “edge of traveled way” should be considered versus “edge of pavement” because of the Town’s many gravel roads. She asked if the definition clarifications suggested by Bob Todd at a previous meeting had been incorporated into the current draft. The Coordinator replied that the Board had discussed those suggestions and agreed to the changes but they had not yet been made to the draft.

The Chairman stated that he had no issue with 30’ for a maximum driveway width as previously discussed along with numbering in accordance with the Town’s Numbering Ordinance.

The next item discussed was Section 11.5, Common Driveways. He thought that this section could remain as written along with the language for secondary driveways. He noted that Todd Mueller had stated in his letter that there was no language in the Driveway Regulations to support waivers or appeals. The Chairman thought that this comment was inaccurate. He added that all of the Coordinator’s suggestions had been incorporated for these sections. Douglas Hill asked what the time frame was temporary driveways (Section 13.3). The Chairman replied that it was one year. Brandy Mitroff asked if the second sentence in that section meant that the extension period was changed from 6 months to twelve also. The Chairman replied that was correct.

The next discussion involved the Coordinator’s response to Jack Munn’s letter. Item #7 of this letter dealt with the specified amount of bonding for a driveway apron. The Chairman thought that $2,500.00, although an excessive amount, would assure that the driveway’s apron was completed. Douglas Hill thought that this number seemed too high and asked if there had been issues in the past with driveway aprons not being completed. The Coordinator noted that the Town currently took security of $250.00 for a driveway apron which was too low a figure and that the bonding was usually taken for scenarios where a CO was sought before the winter season and a driveway was bonded over that time period. The proposed regulation suggested $1,250.00. James Nordstrom asked if the bond amount could be compromised to $2K. The Board agreed.

James Nordstrom thought that Section ____? was irrelevant to what the Board was trying to do in the draft. The Board agreed.

In Section 6, General Provisions, the Chairman believed that the first sentence in the second paragraph should read: “A completed driveway must be approved by the Planning Board or its designee…”. He noted that the Road Agent could still be considered a designee of the Planning Board. Don Duhaime recalled that this had been discussed by the Board at a previous work session. The Planning Assistant noted that the definition of “resurfacing” had been raised by Brandy Mitroff during a previous work session as it appeared in the first sentence of Section 6. The Coordinator recalled that this term had been changed to “paving or repaving” as the Driveway Regulations dealt with curb cuts. She noted that if there was confusion concerning re-graveling it was unwarranted as the Town did not require a permit to do so.

The Chairman suggested that the timeline statement in Section 7.7 be omitted which read: “The entire process from submission to the office of the Planning Board ((Planning Department) to approval could exceed eight weeks depending on any additional information required to be submitted”. He added that he would be in favor of leaving the preceding language that read: “The applicant should expect the process to take two to four weeks from the time the Planning Board receives the application for the Driveway Permit form”. The Board agreed.

In Section 7.10 the Board determined that the Driveway Permit would need the signature of the Planning Board Chairman and the Planning Board’s designee. The Coordinator wished to note that the changes proposed by the Chairman regarding the designee of the Planning Board seemed to be related to issues with the person in the current position of confirming driveway status at the moment and that this was not a good basis for altering or writing a regulation. Instead such issues would be better addressed at a departmental meeting. The Chairman noted that these changes in language were based on the reality of a current problem with the Driveway Permit process. Bob Furey agreed with the Coordinator’s comments but thought that the language proposed by the Chairman left room open for the Road Agent to be the designee. The Coordinator stated that the Board looks at driveways from a land use perspective and initially they had discussed removing themselves from the process of confirming that a driveway was properly constructed, however, they determined that this would not be productive as the Board should be involved in a formal approval process that incorporated their knowledge regarding the application involved while the Road Agent would look at sight distance and other on-site issues. She suggested that a separate section be included in the Driveway Regulations stated that the Road Agent or a designee could be designated to perform these checks, otherwise the Planning Board should follow through any issues they had with the person in the position of checking the driveways with the Selectmen and solve those issues by a departmental meeting. James Nordstrom asked how the current Driveway Permit Process evolved and asked if it was originally handled through the Selectmen’s office. The Coordinator replied that in the mid 1980’s the process involved the Road Agent checking a driveway and the Selectmen signing the Driveway Permit and it was later discovered that according to State statute that it was the Planning Board’s responsibility. Brandy Mitroff thought that a meeting with representatives of the parties involved would be helpful. James Nordstrom thought that the Board should forward a request to the Selectmen to meet with the Road Agent and a representative from the Planning Board to discuss this issue. The Chairman asked what should be done with the language from Section #’s 7.12 and 7.13. Christine Quirk noted that the draft was not being finalized this evening. The Coordinator agreed and noted that a final draft would be drawn up and a public hearing would then be held. Douglas Hill thought that Section 8.2 seemed to cover the language regarding this issue. Brandy Mitroff noted that the wording could be changed at a public hearing at any time in the future also. The Chairman stated that he liked the language that included “Planning Board designee” and asked if this should be considered this evening or tabled. Don Duhaime thought that the item should be tabled. The Board agreed. The Coordinator asked if this meant that the Board was requesting that a meeting be set up between members of the Board and the Selectmen and Road Agent to discuss this issue. The Chairman replied that was correct.

Bob Furey asked if the term “apron” was defined somewhere in the Driveway Regulations as it appeared in Section 9.10. The Chairman noted that Amy Alexander, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., had also noted that a definition was needed. The Coordinator stated that she would write a definition.

The Chairman questioned Section 9.17 and the 12” cover requirement over a 12” culvert as this meant that a 24” ditchline would be required. Douglas Hill thought that this was standard language and there had to be some flexibility for the depth. Don Duhaime thought that this meant the homeowner would be required to create the proper ditchline to meet the Town’s criteria. Douglas Hill noted that culverts would not be needed in every scenario.

Bob Furey thought that Section 9.25 was redundant and should be stricken. The Board agreed. Douglas Hill pointed out that a definition of “apron” was in Section 9.24.

The Chairman stated that Section 9.27 was recommended for removal. The Coordinator clarified that this section was to be changed to reflect the Selectmen’s relatively new numbering ordinance.

In Section 14.2 the Chairman felt that language should be included stating that the Driveway Permit on file be considered in terms of the required -3% grade, therefore, if an unpaved driveway was not built to permit and the owner later wished to pave it, the grade requirement would be caught at the time the permit was referenced.

The Board agreed with the wording of Section 19 regarding waivers and felt no changes were needed.

Douglas Hill asked if Jack Munn’s comment on appeals was addressed. The Chairman stated that Town Counsel had replied to this comment and it was in order.

Brandy Mitroff asked when the Driveway Regulations would go to a public hearing. The Chairman was unsure as a meeting with the Selectmen, Planning Board and Road Agent needed to occur followed by a finalized draft.

MOODY, DANA & McKENZIE, AARON

Adjourned from 4/11/06

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, Bruce Marshall, Esq., of Getman, Stacy, Schultness and Steere, and the applicant Dana Moody. Interested parties were Cynthia Wilson and Burr Tupper of the Conservation Commission.

Brian Pratt stated that at the last meeting four outstanding items were determined from the discussion with the Board and had since been addressed on the plan. He added that these items were submitted a packet to the Board on May 1, 2006, and addressed revised drainage analysis and calculations for a two year storm event, an orange construction fencing note and details, a note that no construction equipment shall cross the orange fencing and a draft deed restriction for Lot #8/122-2. Bruce Marshall, Esq., stated that in regard to this deed restriction the second page detailed a requirement that the property would be subject to these notes. He added that in consideration of the Town not having a setback requirement the applicant had voluntarily added a 5’ no disturbance setback line from the wetlands on the site to the deed. Bruce Marshall, Esq., further added that even though the applicant was approved for a 6 bedroom septic approval he opted out of concern for the surrounding wetlands to reduce the number on the deed restriction to a 4 bedroom structure with a footprint of not more than 2,000 s.f. and no other structures such as garages or out buildings on the site. James Nordstrom clarified that this would allow for a 2,000 s.f. duplex with 2 bedrooms in each unit. The Chairman asked what items the Board was waiting for before determining that the application was complete. The Coordinator replied that the Board was waiting to see what they preferred regarding the stormwater management plan or if it would be waived in its entirety along with the waiver requests to the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Bruce Marshall, Esq., stated that the Board had wanted the notes discussed on the plan before they would consider these waivers.

James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waivers requested in the letter dated January 6, 2006, along with the waiver requested January 24, 2006 for the erosion control and stormwater management plan and drainage analysis. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, asked if the 5’ setback line was all they had room to provide and how a potential owner of one of the proposed units would know where the high water mark line was located. The Chairman replied that the Town had no requirements regarding setback lines and the applicant had offered this setback based on input from the Planning Board and Conservation Commission. Bruce Marshall, Esq., added that because Dana Moody considered himself a steward of this property he added the setback voluntarily to the deed even though it was not required and this would remain on the recorded plan. As far as Cynthia Wilson’s question regarding a tenant of the duplex unit, Mr. Moody would retain ownership of the structure and any future buyer of the property would be put on notice regarding the terms of the deed in place. The Chairman clarified that it was the property owners’ responsibility not the tenant’s to abide by the terms of this deed. He asked if the wetland flags were in place on the site. Bruce Marshall, Esq., replied that they were and should last a couple of years after which metal stakes could be placed with small green signs to note the jurisdictional bounds adjacent to the site.

James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Dana Moody and Aaron

MacKenzie, Minor Subdivision, 3 Lots, Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot 8/122,

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

The Chairman asked if building envelopes were noted on the plan. Brian Pratt replied that the building envelopes were shown on sheets 3 & 4 of the plan and were larger than the structures proposed for the lots. Douglas Hill asked if sheet #4 included the deed restriction. Brian Pratt replied that was correct. The Chairman asked if the plan would have a detention pond for Lot #8/122-2. Brian Pratt replied that Lot #8/122-1 would have a detention pond and that the natural grading and proposed driveway culvert for Lot #8/122-2 would create a small detention pond with total peak runoff decreased from 0.53 cubic feet per second to 0.49 cubic feet of runoff.

The Chairman asked if the Conservation Commission had anything to add to the discussion. Burr Tupper still questioned how Lot #8/122-2 would be excavated without disturbing wetlands as there was significant rock on the site. Brian Pratt replied that when test pits were done on the lot they noted boulders but no ledge that would require blasting, therefore, he did not believe that excavating for the foundation of the proposed structure would cause any impacts to the wetlands. He added that with 32’ provided on either side of the envelope there was ample room for construction equipment to traverse the site even with the orange construction fencing and silt fencing. Burr Tupper still questioned how a cellar hole could be dug without causing disturbance to the wetlands. Bruce Marshall, Esq., stated that the applicant was taking all necessary measures to assure that such impacts would not occur and the plans signified that they were legally bound to such assurance. The Chairman added that the applicant had taken extra measures to do so by voluntarily reducing the size of the proposed structure. Bruce Marshall, Esq., reiterated that the square footage would be 2,000.s.f. maximum and was likely to be at 1,800 s.f. or less. Cynthia Wilson asked if the structure would be on a slab. The Chairman replied that it was proposed with a foundation.

The Chairman saw no further issues with the application and felt that the size and usage proposed reasonably addressed the limitations of the site and was a fair compromise. James Nordstrom stated that he felt the applicant had demonstrated by his offerings a good attempt to ensure that the wetlands would not be impacted although in fact there was only 120’ distance between the two wetlands on site. The Chairman noted that the excavation would be challenging but it was conceivable and mediated to as reasonable a scenario as it could be. James Nordstrom assumed that the Conservation Commission was still against Lot #8/122-2 being a lot. Cynthia Wilson and Burr Tupper agreed. Burr Tupper asked if the applicant would require a permit if it was discovered that boulders on site needed blasting. The Chairman replied they would not. Bruce Marshall, Esq., stated that the applicant had agreed to precautions that met or exceeded the Town regulations due to the sensitivity of the site. Douglas Hill asked if the Conservation Commission could be allowed on site to monitor the subdivision. The Chairman felt that the applicant recognized that the payback on having a duplex would be lessened if he incurred a wetland violation. Burr Tupper asked who would be the monitoring entity as the State would not visit the site unless alerted. Bruce Marshall, Esq., stated that the applicant would be willing to give the Conservation Commission license to enter the site during construction with 24 hour notice in order to monitor the status of the wetlands. James Nordstrom asked Cynthia Wilson and Burr Tupper how the Conservation Commission felt about that suggestion. Cynthia Wilson stated that she was in a volunteer capacity as a member of the Conservation Commission and would not mind being a monitor but noted that the Building Inspector as a paid employee of the Town was also an option. James Nordstrom asked if the Conservation Commission was willing to accept this responsibility for now. Cynthia Wilson replied that they were.

James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the application for Minor Subdivision, Land of Dana Moody and Aaron McKenzie, Tax Map/Lot #8/122, Clark Hill Road, subject to:

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:

1. Submission of a minimum of five (5) 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 or recording of documents at the HCRD.

The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be September 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. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

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

This will be an informational session with Thomas Huot, LLS, from Bedford Design Consultants, to discuss a potential subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #2/62, Twin Bridge Road owned by Twin Bridge Management, LLC.

Thomas Huot, LLS and Craig Francisco, LLS, Bedford Design Consultants, were present for this discussion along with Tris Gordon, Bob Huettner and Sharon Huettner. Interested parties present were Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, Janet White, Piscataquog Local Advisory Committee, Donna Mombourquette and Paul Morin.

Thomas Huot, LLS, introduced himself and turned the presentation over to Craig

Francisco, LLS. Craig Francisco, LLS, submitted conceptual plans to the Board and noted the location of the site in relation to Twin Bridge and Weare Roads. He also noted the wetland areas on the plan which were shaded by dark green and added that the site was in the Manufactured Housing Park Zone, therefore, single family homes were allowed per the R1 district zoning as voted in March, 2006. Craig Francisco stated that the site was 130 acres and partially located in the groundwater resources conservation overlay district. He added that 39 lots and three wetland crossings were proposed. Craig Francisco, LLS, pointed out the location of an existing gravel pit that would be reclaimed if the planned subdivision application were approved. He noted the location of an existing 50’ access easement that accessed the town of Weare, NH, by Twin Bridge Road which would be discontinued if the plan were approved. Due to past concerns raised by abutters and local residents regarding the close proximity of the Piscataquog River, Craig Francisco, LLS, explained that the applicant would propose a 150’ woodland buffer similar to what was required under the Shoreland Protection Act even though this site did not fall into that category. He noted that three driveways would be proposed off Twin Bridge Road and that the subdivision would also propose three lengthy cul-de-sacs at 2,300’, 2,150’ and 2,000’. Craig Francisco, LLS, stated that the applicant had considered the alternative of a looped road for the subdivision, however, this would cause more disturbance to the wetlands. He added that Steep Slopes and suitable building envelopes had been considered and that although soils tests had not yet been performed they assumed that they would be poorly drained to very poorly drained with half of the lots requiring stormwater management plans as they would not meet the 0.5 acres of suitable building envelope per lot. Craig Francisco, LLS, stated that the applicant was surprised to learn that the R1 district did not allow cluster designs or backlots. He added that at this juncture they were looking for input from the Board regarding the conceptual plan.

The Chairman asked why Lot #’s 12, 13, and 28 could not be connected with a road. Craig Francisco, LLS, replied that a loop road could be introduced in that area; however, it would cause two additional wetland disturbances. Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission asked if the plan showed a fourth wetland disturbance next to one of the proposed roads. Craig Francisco, LLS, replied that was not the case. Douglas Hill asked if there was flowing water or swamp area in the wetlands. Craig Francisco, LLS, explained that many years prior a ditchline was dug through the wetlands on the site, therefore, there was some minimal flow present along with a pond and open water drainage patterns that all came together. Bob Furey asked if the middle section of the subdivision could be spanned with a bridge. Craig Francisco, LLS, replied that this was a possibility. The Chairman asked if open bottom or box culverts would be proposed noting that he supposed it was dependant on the velocity of the flows in the area. Craig Francisco, LLS, replied that the velocities were low and the site area was flat with 10’ elevation changes and 10’ maximum heights above the wetlands with the exception of the existing gravel pit.

The Chairman thought the density proposed seemed intense. Craig Francisco, LLS, reiterated that the site was 130 acres with 39 lots proposed most of which were over 2.5 acres. Thomas Huot, LLS, stated that the density could have been increased along the Piscataquog River but the applicants decided against it as they assumed this would raise concerns. Craig Francisco, LLS, noted that the 200 scale plan had been reduced to the 8.5” X 11” plans that the Board was given. The Chairman asked if there would be no further subdivision allowed on the larger acres lots. Thomas Huot, LLS, replied that this could be considered. Tris Gordon noted that the area surrounding the larger 20 acre lot was fairly wet so further subdivision might not be plausible. Cynthia Wilson stated that she was certain that the Conservation Commission would like to see a no further subdivision clause written into the deed for the 20 acre lot. Bob Furey noted that another recent applicant whose site had wetlands had agreed to a dedicated wildlife easement and asked if the applicants were aware of wildlife groupings on site as this would be considered by the Conservation Commission. Thomas Huot, LLS, asked if the applicant in question had dedicated a specific width for the easement. Bob Furey replied that the wetland pattern had been followed and he believed the easement proposed was 100’ wide. He added that the Board was always trying to better enable wildlife patterns in the Town in conjunction with proposed development. Douglas Hill noted that such easements were allowed to cross property lines also. Cynthia Wilson further noted that a conservation easement could contain most of the major wetland on the site although it might be difficult to monitor. Thomas Huot, LLS, asked if such an easement could compromise the 0.5 acre minimum suitable building are requirement for the lots. Craig Francisco, LLS, did not think it would as the applicant would own the easement. Douglas Hill stated that it would be similar to proposing open space for the subdivision and could be a deed restriction. Cynthia Wilson clarified that there was a difference between a perpetual easement and a deed restriction which could be changed by a future buyer. In this light she noted that a conservation easement would be the better option and could then be attached to the deed. Cynthia Wilson added that she had written some conservation easement language for the Town and would be willing to provide a draft copy to the applicants. Craig Francisco, LLS, asked if these examples were approved and recorded in which case he could reference them online or at the Registry of Deeds. Cynthia Wilson replied that this could be done. She noted that she would like to see the 150’ woodland buffer previously discussed also put under a conservation easement.

Bob Furey questioned the white area on the plan between the proposed woodland buffer and the Piscataquog River. Craig Francisco, LLS, replied that this area was not owned by the applicant. The Chairman asked who owned that property. Tris Gordon replied that he believed it was owned by Joe Trimbur.

The Chairman stated that he would be interested in the feasibility of connecting the two proposed roads. Cynthia Wilson noted that the biggest disruption to wildlife was roads, therefore, to place a bridge across wetlands would be very disruptive. The Chairman asked if means of fire protection had been considered as the cul-de-sacs proposed were quite long. Craig Francisco, LLS, replied that there was an existing cistern and dry hydrant in the vicinity of some of the proposed lots and fire sprinkler systems would be proposed for those lots outside of that proximity. The Chairman asked if single family homes were being considered and what their price range would be. Craig Francisco, LLS, replied that single family homes were the consideration. Tris Gordon added that the home would be in the $200K to $300K range which depended on how the process of the application went. Cynthia Wilson questioned the road noted on the plan which crossed the site into Weare, NH. Craig Francisco, LLS, explained that the road was an existing access easement which the applicant would discontinue as part of the application. Interested party, Donna Mombourquette noted that keeping the easement access would prevent a wetland crossing. Craig Francisco, LLS, replied that keeping that access would mean that the Town would require fee simple on the roadway which the applicant did not have presently. Donna Mombourquette asked if Lot #3/3 was not also included within one of the lots noted on the plan. Craig Francisco, LLS, replied that there was an additional lot there and this application would, in fact, involve Lot #2/62 and #3/3.

The Chairman asked the Board if there were any further questions on the conceptual plan. James Nordstrom commented that he would like to see less cul-de-sac length proposed on the plan. Christine Quirk stated that she thought that one existing cistern and dry hydrant for the subdivision might concern the Fire Department.

Interested party, Paul Morin stated that he was a member of the Weare, NH, planning board and a friend of Craig Francisco, LLS, who also sat on that board. He wished to note that because tonight’s discussion was informal regarding the conceptual design he felt it worthy to mention that this applicant had another application that had gone before the ZBA due to the close proximity of that plan’s roadway to the town of Weare, NH. Paul Morin added that the majority of the traffic generated from this conceptual subdivision was likely to turn right out of the subdivision and onto NH Route 77 and cross through an existing intersection in Weare, NH, that had been identified by the Weare Master Plan as the town’s most dangerous crossing. He added that if regional impacts were determined by this issue then the town of Weare, NH, would have abutter status with this application. Paul Morin added that the town of Weare, NH, may, in that regard, require that offsite improvements be instituted which would fall beyond New Boston, NH, town lines and he wondered how this unique situation would be addressed between the two town boards without undue delays or burdens to the applicant. Bob Furey asked Paul Morin to note the location of the intersection. Paul Morin replied that the intersection was at Twin Bridge Road and NH Route 114. He disclosed that his personal residence was located near that intersection which might recuse him from any proceedings, however, he did want to note that this intersection had been the site of numerous traffic accidents. Paul Morin reiterated that because the intersection was not in the town of New Boston, NH, the process to investigate impacts to it might present an awkward scenario for the Planning Board. James Nordstrom asked if the town of Weare, NH, had statistical analysis on the intersection in question. Paul Morin replied that such an analysis had been done as part of Weare’s master plan. James Nordstrom asked if the New Boston Planning Board could secure a copy of that analysis. Paul Morin replied that he would see that a copy was forwarded. He added that if regional impacts were determined then the SNHPC would also become involved as they had prepared Weare’s master plan. The Chairman thanked Paul Morin for his input.

Donna Mombourquette asked that the applicant consider including the Piscataquog Local Advisory Committee in their planning because of the close proximity of the proposed subdivision to the Piscataquog River. She added that she was very pleased with the applicant’s proposal for a woodland buffer as there was a deer path that ran along a steep embankment to the Piscataquog River as well as osprey nesting. The Chairman asked what ran adjacent to the Piscataquog River along the deer path and between the two proposed roads that would be affected if those roads were connected. Donna Mombourquette replied that she was unsure, however, NH Fish and Game and NHDES would likely have maps of the overlying area. She noted that there was osprey in that area. Cynthia Wilson added that coyote, fox, moose, otter, beavers, turkey, geese, Fisher cats and six species of duck were also known to be in that location. Interested party, Janet White of the Piscataquog Local Advisory Committee wished to applaud the applicant for their efforts to preserve the area surrounding the site. Burr Tupper asked if the woodland buffer would retain its vegetation. Craig Francisco, LLS, replied that it would and would offer the same benefits as if the site were under the requirements of the Shoreland Protection Act.

Bob Furey asked if there were sight distance issues from either proposed entrance to the subdivision off Twin Bridge Road. Craig Francisco, LLS, replied there were not. He then asked if Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies would be required in the preliminary approval stage of the application. The Chairman replied that the preliminary stage of the application would deal more with the issue of Weare’s intersection and that would need to be resolved prior to density items. He asked if the applicant planned to present traffic counts in light of the intersection issue to the Weare planning board and ask their advice. Tris Gordon replied that he had met with the Selectmen in the town of Weare in the spring of 2005 regarding the intersection and had offered to help with upgrades to which they replied that the State should handle those upgrades. He added that 20 lots had been approved in Weare, NH, on the other side of the intersection in question over the last five years with no traffic studies required, therefore, he felt that Mr. Morin’s regional impact concerns had more to do with the fact that his residence was nearby. Tris Gordon noted that they were agreeable to providing a traffic study if that was preferred by the Board.

Donna Mombourquette returned to the subject of a ditchline dug into the wetlands some time ago noting that she had walked that area and found the water flows to run through at a high level. Craig Francisco, LLS, noted that this area was 600’ to 700’ long and 3’ deep, and questioned the high flow capability and that he had viewed the area one to two years prior. Donna Mombourquette replied that she had seen high water levels in the past at that location that were 4’ to 5’ higher than what was presently there.

The Chairman stated that he would like to see the feasibility of connecting the proposed roads and how that would affect the lot lines. He added that a traffic study should be done for the preliminary application and the fiscal and environmental could be prepared for the final application. The Chairman further added that the Board was always interested in seeing fewer lots proposed.

NOE, CHARLES R.

Submission of Application/Public Hearing

Subdivision/NRSPR/Condominium

Location: 13 Hemlock Drive

Tax Map/Lot # 3/52-24

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, and the applicant, Charles Noe. No abutters or interested parties were present.

Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the applicant proposed to change his existing duplex to a condominium status with no physical changes to the site. He added that the site was located on the corner of Hemlock and Styles Roads with parking spaces designated in limited common areas 20’ X 20’ for the units. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the brown area on the plan represented an existing gravel driveway. He noted that the widths of the finished surfaces were not labeled and that the plan was done to scale, however, if the Board wanted the dimensions added this could be done. Returning to the subject of parking, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that three spots were dedicated currently per unit unless the Board preferred more, and that the 20’ X 20’ area should accommodate two cars. He added that exterior lighting on the plan was existing with no proposed changes. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that he believed there was an existing cistern on Styles Road and the distance to the site could be added to the plan if the Board required it, however, he likened the cistern requirement more to new construction than existing. Regarding snow removal, Earl Sandford, LLS, stated that there was a large area around the driveway to accommodate plowing which had not been a problem thus far. Douglas Hill asked if the site had its own well. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it did. Douglas Hill then asked if Condominium Documents had been prepared. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that they had been submitted.

James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waivers requested for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Bob Furey MOVED to accept the application of Charles Noe, Subdivision/NRSPR/Condominium, Location: 13 Hemlock Drive, Tax Map/Lot #3/52- 24, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

The Chairman stated that the notes required per the Planning Department review could be conditioned with the approval of the plan such as measured distance to the existing cistern. He did not feel that a site walk was necessary. The Board agreed. James Nordstrom suggested that the notes required on the plan could be addressed in note form rather than graphically adding dimensions to the plan. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that this could be done. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she had any other outstanding items and she replied that she did not.

James Nordstrom MOVED to conditionally approve the Condominium Subdivision and Site Plan, Units 13A & 13B, 13 Hemlock Drive Condominium, Charles Noe, Tax Map/Lot #3/52-24, Hemlock Drive and Styles Road, subject to:

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:

1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;

2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD;

3. Receipt of Town Counsel’s approval of the Declaration of Condominium

Covenants;

4. Submission of any outstanding application fees and the fees for recording at the HCRD.

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

POTHIER, LINDA & PARE, MICHAEL

Adjourned from 4/25/06

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 was Linda Pothier. No abutters or interested parties were present. Linda Pothier asked if she could tape the hearing on her own recording device for her husband who could not be present. The Chairman replied that she could.

The Chairman asked if Linda Pothier had met with the Selectmen since the last meeting with the Board. Linda Pothier replied that she had and was now back before the Board for approval of her plan which was conditional on the Selectmen’s release of liability for the Class VI road of which she proposed her business. Christine Quirk noted that copies of the Selectmen’s letter noting their agreement to release the liability had been distributed to the Board in their informational packets for this evening. The Board then reviewed this letter. The Chairman stated that in reading the Selectmen’s letter it was evident that they did not believe the applicant’s proposed business would have significant impacts to the condition of the Class VI road and that based on the number of trips the business would generate the road would not need to be improved to Class V standards. Douglas Hill understood that the business was of an agricultural nature and was willing to approve the plan as long as the Selectmen had approved the release of liability. The Chairman asked if the Selectmen questioned potential impacts to the road. Christine Quirk replied that was the case in addition to any issues the Board may note that the Selectmen were unaware of. James Nordstrom stated that he did not see any issues with road impacts.

The Coordinator stated that based on the site plan submitted and the notes included, it would be in the best interest of the applicant if the calculations of number of trips per week were more specific. She explained that according to the current calculation provided the number of trips could reach a maximum of 328 trips per week which may not be the true representation and when the Road Agent and Selectmen look at the Class VI road this information will be considered. James Nordstrom agreed. Linda Pothier replied that the trip count of 328 was clearly not the case. The Coordinator noted that the issue was that the number of trips were not clear as noted on the plan. Linda Pothier stated that she was under the impression that such specific wording was a requirement of the Selectmen as at the last Planning Board meeting she had asked if any further changes would be required on the plan. The Chairman explained that based on the Selectmen’s recent input changes were no required. James Nordstrom suggested that the applicant present the plan with the current trip calculation to the Selectmen and see what they said. Linda Pothier asked for an explanation of how the maximum number of trips was derived. The Coordinator explained that 10 kids a day x 4 trips per day [drop off and pick up] = 40 trips per day x 7 days a week = 280 and 12 lessons per week x 4 trips per lesson [drop off and pick up] = 48. 280 + 48 = 328. Linda Pothier noted that many children carpooled to lessons. She asked how she should manipulate her information to lower the maximum number of trips. Bob Furey noted that if she reduced her numbers of students per day she would be limiting herself. The Chairman stated that from the Selectmen’s point of view the calculation as it stood represented a car every 15 minutes at peak times which may not be viewed as excessive. If it was then he suggested that Linda Pothier could decrease the number of students accepted per day. Linda Pothier wished to note that the summer camp she offered was a separate item from her standard horse back riding lessons. The Chairman suggested that Linda Pothier wait to see how the Selectmen felt about the issue noting that she had the formula to reduce the number of trips if that became necessary. The Coordinator explained that the current calculation assumed that the lessons were being held 7 days per week, therefore, if that was not the case the formula could be adjusted and that would drop the number of trips and more clearly indicate the scope of the plan. Linda Pothier asked how she should go about speaking with the Road Agent. Christine Quirk advised that she should phone him directly.

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 June 13, 2006, at 8:00 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.

Kristine Filteau and Lynn Strong were present for their Miscellaneous Business item to discuss The Rising Generation Daycare. The Coordinator explained that the Board had had some time before the last hearing and had addressed their item by extending the conditions subsequent deadline to August 1, 2006. She added that the Board did not want to schedule a compliance hearing until the site work was completed and would need to schedule a compliance site walk ahead of any meeting date.

Kristine Filteau wished to note that the plan showed existing lighting on fire escapes and that the fire escapes that were part of the phase II construction would need to come down and be rebuilt. James Nordstrom commented that he did not think this presented an issue for the plan. Kristine Filteau added that a new sign with the business name was on order and may not be in place by the time of the compliance site walk. The Chairman replied that this was not an issue.

Lastly, Kristine Filteau explained that fencing for the playground on the site was not on the site plan approval and if that were understood then they were ready for a compliance site walk any time. A compliance site walk was then scheduled for May 13, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. +/-.

5. A copy of a letter received April 28, 2006, from Melissa Harvey, to the Board of Selectmen, Re: kitchen business, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

After reading the above noted letter it was determined that Ms. Harvey should be forwarded the Planning Board’s standard letter which noted the criteria under which a site plan would not be required for such a minor in home business.

6. A copy of a letter dated April 27, 2006, from William R. Drescher, Drescher & Dokmo, Re: Colburn Road-Chretien Property-Condex-Document Review, Tax Map/Lot #1/44, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

The Coordinator stated that she could forward the changes suggested in the above noted letter by William R. Drescher, Esq., to the applicant. The Board agreed.

7. A copy of a letter received April 28, 2006, to members of the Planning Board, from John T. Melito, Re: re-zoning of Tax Map/Lot #3/63-24, Whipplewill Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

The Coordinator stated that she had asked the Town Administrator to reply to the above noted letter as he had spoken with John Neville regarding the blasting at the above noted site and whether it had been approved by the Town. She noted that the Board had already sent correspondence to Mr. Melito after his first letter. The Chairman stated that a second response letter from the Board was unnecessary.

8. A copy of a letter received April 27, 2006, from Robert E. Hall, to the New Boston Planning Board, Re: 2006 Revised Boundary Survey for Tax Map/Lot #12/51, was distributed for the Board’s information.

Bob Furey asked if the validity of the issue noted in the above letter had been confirmed.

The Coordinator replied that the issue detailed in the letter dealt with a long standing dispute and the Board had previously written to Mr. Hall to inform him that this was a matter that should be handled privately by the parties involved.

9. A Daily Road Inspection report dated, December 8, 2005, from Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Re: Kettle Lane, was distributed for the Board’s information

10. Driveway Permit Application for Sean and Gary Lutz, Bunker Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot

#1/2-5, for the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to meeting)

The Chairman stated that he did not see markings for the proposed driveway on the site. The Coordinator noted that she had a call into the applicants as a Driveway Permit already existed for Lot #1/2-6 which shared a driveway with Lot #1/2-5. She explained that the permit showed that the entrance of the driveway was on Lot #1/2-6 to access Lot #1/2-5 which was necessary as there was a cemetery and wetland on the lot that limited the entrance location options. The Coordinator added that the subdivision plan was approved with the entrance on Lot #1/2-5. Douglas Hill thought that the proposed driveway would have sight distance issues turning right toward NH Route 136. The Coordinator noted that the office was waiting to hear from the Lutz’s as to why they thought they needed to apply for a new driveway permit.

11. A copy of a letter dated May 4, 2006, from William R. Drescher, Drescher & Dokmo, to Re: Locus Field, LLC,-Condex-Document Review, Tax Map/Lot #1/44,

was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

The Coordinator stated that William R. Drescher, Esq., had suggested no changes to the Condex Document and she would inform the applicant.

12. The Meeting Agenda for May 17, 2006, received May 5, 2006, from Southern NH Planning Commission, Re: Growth Management, was distributed for the Board’s information.

13. The minutes of April 25, 2006, were distributed for approval at the meeting of May 23, 2006, with or without changes.

14. The Coordinator stated that the Master Plan Committee had been scheduled to present the Master Plan to the Board at the June 13, 2006, Planning Board meeting, however, the Forestry Committee had not been satisfied with how the Natural Resource chapter was written, therefore, the presentation of the Master Plan was being postponed until August, 2006. She noted that Jack Munn of Southern NH Planning did not feel that this postponement was any reason to delay the formation of a committee to begin work on Town regulations as that had no bearing on the Natural Resource chapter. The Coordinator added that Southern NH Planning would have a representative present at the next Planning Board meeting to discuss this topic.

At 10:53 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne O’Brien, Recording Clerk Minutes Approved: