New Boston, NH - Planning Board Minutes 04/11/2006

Planning Board Minutes 04/11/2006

TOWN OF NEW BOSTON

NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD

Minutes of 2006 Meetings

April 11, 2006

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, Bob Furey; ex-officio Christine Quirk; and, alternate Douglas Hill. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Board Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.

Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Cynthia Wilson, Neil Smith, Roch Larochelle, Kim Burkhamer, Rob Starace, Brandy Mitroff, Sarah Hogan, Dana Moody, Ken Lombard, Brian Pratt, Bruce Marshall, Esq., Timothy Watson, Dana Lorden, Bryan de Jesus, Ivan Byam, Steve Dunbar, Brian Defosses, Bob Todd, LLS, Will Poirier, George Chretien and Damien Martineau.

MOODY, DANA & McKENZIE, AARON Adjourned from 2/28/06

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. An interested party was Cynthia Wilson of the Conservation Commission.

Dana Moody spoke from a written statement and first wished to express his thanks to the Planning Board and Conservation Commission for their input regarding his proposed subdivision. He noted that he was concerned about wetland conservation also and believed that the concerns expressed by the Board and Conservation Commission regarding his plan were unfounded as he had not encountered any impacts when he built his own home on abutting property to the site. Dana Moody wished to add that he was a lover of nature and caretaker of his land and never prohibited public access for passive recreation. He also wished to thank the Conservation Commission for inviting him to attend their last meeting although he was unable to attend. Dana Moody added that despite his unblemished record of stewardship it appeared that the Conservation Commission and Planning Bard harbored animosity towards his proposed subdivision and added that there were never any professional facts presented at past meetings to substantiate their concerns regarding wetland setback lines, basement flooding, fertilizer runoff potential, etc. Dana Moody continued that he had spent $30K in engineering costs to assure that his proposal met all regulations and in further support he had received State Subdivision Approval, Septic Approval and met all setback requirements. He noted that his plan implemented measures for erosion control, illustrated 200’ of frontage for each lot as required and met the two acre minimum with 1.5 acres of contiguous dry land supporting a 200’ square and Driveway Permits.

Brian Pratt stated that some issues raised by the Board at the last meeting had been addressed. He noted the first issue to be the sight distance from Lot #8/122-1’s proposed driveway and that a field check had since been performed which confirmed that ample sight distance was present. Brian Pratt submitted a photo of the sight distance check taken from the

centerline of the oncoming road looking toward the proposed driveway. He noted areas on the photo where some shoulder grading might be necessary. Brian Pratt stated that the second issue had been the drainage calculation which was since redone and a letter provided which explained that in order to comply with requirements the inverts needed to be adjusted and a detention pond would be needed 30 or 40 feet in front of the proposed house on Lot #8/122-1. He noted that the applicant preferred a waiver on this item because there was an increase in runoff to the existing swamp of less than 1 cubic foot per second which he likened to a drop of water in a lake. The Chairman asked where the flows into the swamp originated from. Brian Pratt replied that he had not done a regional study on the area but knew there were many areas of flow into the swamp.

Brian Pratt stated that the third issue involved the septic designs which had been approved by the State who confirmed that the lot areas could support a house and septic. The Chairman asked if the State had been on site and when. Brian Pratt replied that the State had been on site at the time of State Subdivision Approval in December, 2005. He stated that they had been before the Board two times for this application and felt they had addressed all their comments so would like to have the application accepted as complete this evening. The Chairman noted that because the majority of the Board familiar with this application was not available this evening it was the applicant’s choice whether he wished to adjourn to another meeting date. Bruce Marshall, Esq., asked if he could confer with his client (the applicant) for a few minutes. The Chairman replied that he could. After a brief consultation Bruce Marshall, Esq., stated that as long as the meeting was on the record his applicant would prefer a vote this evening by the Board members present. He added that he had reviewed the prior meeting’s minutes and given his experience as a State civil engineer for 18 years felt that his client had met all regulations. Bruce Marshall, Esq., further added that if the Board denied the application this evening the applicant would then be able to move forward to the next step as soon as possible.

The Chairman asked if the Conservation Commission had provided any further input regarding the application. The Coordinator replied that other than a letter already submitted to the Board they had nothing further. The Chairman asked Cynthia Wilson who was in attendance if she was here as a representative of the Conservation Commission this evening and if she had any further comments on the application. Cynthia Wilson replied that she was here as a representative of the Conservation Commission and had no further comments on the application. The Chairman then stated that an erosion control plan and drainage analysis had been submitted. The Coordinator interjected that a waiver had been requested to the requirement for these items per Section V-V of the Subdivision Regulations. She explained that the Board needed to determine if this requirement was warranted for the application before it could be considered for completeness. The Coordinator added that if present critical areas needed to be defined on the plan. Bob Furey asked if on sheet 4 of 6 for Lot #8/122-2 any critical areas were defined. Brian Pratt stated that he understood a critical area to be 50’ feet from poorly drained soils or 75’ from very poorly drained soils. The Coordinator replied that in addition to that other considerations were, as read from the Subdivision Regulations: “…disturbed areas exceeding 2,000 s.f. of highly erodible soils; disturbed areas exceeding 20,000 s.f. of any soil type; creation of impermeable surfaces exceeding 10,000.s.f.; disturbed areas within 20’ of a side lot line; or, disturbed areas containing slopes in excess of 15% covering 1,000 s.f. or more.” Brian Pratt replied that although no disturbance calculations had been done he did not feel that disturbed areas exceeded 20,000 s.f. and added that there was no disturbance to slopes over 15% on the site. The Chairman stated that he could not conceive that it would be possible to construct a house with a septic system on the hill of proposed Lot #8/122-2 without disturbing the existing wetlands based on the width of the hill. He added that if the septic system needed maintenance you would come very close to the wetlands which he felt would spread substantially as a result. Brian Pratt disagreed and noted that with 35’ on one side of the hill and 70’ feet on the other there was ample room to dig a cellar hole and there was over 125’ to the edges of the jurisdictional wetlands. He added that if this issue was such a sticking point then perhaps there should be wetland setback requirements in the Subdivision Regulations. The Chairman replied that the Board was able to exercise their discretion if they believed that grading the site would essentially connect two wetlands. Brian Pratt noted that the water table did not come into play at that measure. The Chairman stated that a cellar hole would. Brian Pratt returned that this was the reason for foundation drains. The Chairman disagreed and stated that foundation drains were meant to address runoff. Bruce Marshall, Esq., stated that the application before the Board met the Town’s Regulations and if the Board was attempting to impose a condition not in those Regulations such as wetland setbacks then it would seem to him that there was malice from the Board regarding this application. He asked that if the Board was intent on rejecting the application based on a setback requirement not in the Regulations then this should be stated for the record. He added that under New Hampshire State law when a Planning Board did so it could be considered a taking, therefore, the Town could be called upon to compensate the applicant. Bruce Marshall, Esq., requested that the board state whether or not they would accept the application and, if not, provide their reasons rather than debating this evening. The Chairman explained that the Board was looking for a feasibility study with specifics on the size of the foundation intended and grading that would demonstrate if Lot #8/122-2 was a buildable lot as it was currently the Board’s opinion based on the recent site walk that it was not. He added that it had become apparent that some filling had taken place on the site and asked Cynthia Wilson if this was also the opinion of the Conservation Commission. Cynthia Wilson replied that it was, however, this had been denied by the applicant at the site walk.

The Chairman summarized that the applicant had proved the sight distance on Lot #8/122-1 which had been the major issue of that lot but did not feel that it had been demonstrated that a house could be constructed on Lot #8/122-2 without effectively connecting two existing wetlands especially since one wetland sat higher than the other. Brian Pratt clarified that sheet #4 of the plan showed such feasibility along with maintaining a reasonable setback from the wetlands. Brian Pratt asked if there were any other issues. The Chairman replied that it appeared that footings laid for a home constructed on Lot #8/122-2 would be under water. Bruce Marshall, Esq., stated that test pits taken on the site showed this would not be the case and added that as a past home builder he did not agree that foundation drains were not used to drain water in cellar holes. He noted that the foundation on proposed Lot #8/122-2 would sit 3’ higher than the water table on site and that no water from slopes on the site was coming out of the ground.

Bruce Marshall, Esq., stated that placing conditions on the application was the Board’s discretion, however, this proposed subdivision met all the Town requirements and if further

requirements were being requested this evening then the applicant would like a list for the next meeting. The Chairman replied that the applicant had satisfied the requirements on Lot #8/122-1 which was the sight distance issue. He added that even though a duplex was allowed per the Regulations he would be more comfortable if the usage on Lot #8/122-2 was better defined on the plan, i.e. if minimal usage such as a single family home were proposed. The Chairman noted that if a single family were constructed on Lot #8/122-2 it would not raise the same concerns because the impacts would not be the same. Bruce Marshall, Esq., asked if he could take a moment to confer with his client. The Chairman replied that he could. After a brief consultation Bruce Marshall, Esq., stated that while the applicant may be willing to consider this in the future he was not willing to concede this evening to limiting the usage on Lot #8/122-1 to a single family home.

The Chairman asked if the applicant sought the Board’s vote for accepting the application as complete this evening. Bruce Marshall, Esq., replied that the applicant was under the impression that this was what he was on the agenda for. The Chairman explained that as far as the application’s completeness the final issue to discuss was the density that this proposal would bring to the area involved. He added that according to the Master Plan of 1987 the area where the site was located was to be considered a low density residential area. Bruce Marshall, Esq., noted that the applicant was working according to the Zoning Ordinances as they stood and if different regulations for duplexes was desired then that should be spelled out in Zoning. The Chairman explained that the applicant should realize that the Board also had discretion and that if that were not the case they would not need to be here. He added that the point he was trying to make was that if the applicant was able to exercise restraint on the developability of the site then impacts could be minimized. Bruce Marshall, Esq., asked that the Board consider accepting the plan as complete as submitted or if conditions were preferred then the applicant would have something further to work with. He noted that in representing other towns it was not uncommon for such conditions to be inserted into deed restrictions. The Chairman stated that if the Board required restrictions it would be the applicant’s responsibility to devise them and Town Counsel would then be called upon to review them. Bruce Marshall, Esq., noted that under duplex deed restrictions the applicant could retain the ownership and economic liability of the lots.

The Chairman asked if the erosion and sediment control plan was significant enough to meet the Town’s requirements, thereby making the application complete. Bob Furey noted that the drainage calculations had been redone based on a 25 year storm and included detention areas. He asked if the detention area assumed a 2 year or 25 year storm. Brian Pratt replied that it assumed a 25 year storm and to accomplish this he had raised the invert to the culvert. He added that a 2 year storm put nothing through the culvert and reiterated that the applicant preferred a waiver to this requirement as he did not want standing water in front of the home on Lot #8/122-2 after a storm. Bob Furey asked if a statement could be added to the plan which noted that pre and post-calculations worked. Brian Pratt replied that he could do so. In regards to the requirement for the Stormwater Erosion and Sediment Control Plan per Section V-V of the

Subdivision Regulations, Bob Furey stated that, in his opinion, some sensitivity was present on Lot #8/122-2 and while some silt fencing was detailed he felt that in keeping with the stormwater

plans that a statement should be added which said that no construction equipment shall cross the silt fence lines. Bruce Marshall, Esq., added that he had worked on highways for NHDOT for 15 years and found that orange construction fencing worked well to assure that construction equipment did not cross silt fence lines. Bob Furey thought this was a good suggestion. He noted that the Subdivision Regulations stated when the Board could require an erosion control plan of applicant, therefore, adding the statements he mentioned would be appropriate. Brian Pratt asked if this request was generally required for minor subdivisions. Bob Furey replied that it had been and added that these statements should also be added onto the plan. The Chairman noted that such requirements were dependent on the sensitivity of the lot involved. He further noted that the majority of discussion had been on Lot #8/122-2 of this plan and not Lot #8/122-1.

Bob Furey asked if Brian Pratt could point out the areas of regrading proposed for sight distance on the submitted photo. Brian Pratt noted these areas on the photo and wished to add that nowhere in the Subdivision Regulations was the distance required mentioned. He stated that other towns required 150’ and they had at least that measure in this case. Brian Pratt explained that minimum improvements along the road off which the driveway was proposed would be required if 200’ of sight distance was sought and that for 150’ no improvements would be necessary.

The Chairman asked ex-officio, Christine Quirk if she had attended the site walk for this application. Christine Quirk replied that she had not. The Chairman asked Bob Furey if he felt that with the comments given the erosion and sediment control plan requirements had been met. Bob Furey replied that they would not be met without the specific notes mentioned being referenced on the plan. The Chairman stated that the Board had discussed the waiver requests for the requirements of the Traffic and Fiscal Impact Studies at the prior meeting and he had no issue with those waivers. He noted that the Environmental Impact Study would tie in with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan notes discussed by Bob Furey. The Chairman then asked Bob Furey how far back from the wetlands the silt fencing should be located. Bob Furey asked Brian Pratt what a realistic measure would be considering there was only 32’ to work with. Brian Pratt replied that they proposed putting the silt fencing close to the edge of the wetlands with orange construction fencing. Bruce Marshall, Esq., clarified that 5’ from the edge of the wetlands should be sufficient for the orange construction fencing and the silt fence would be placed in front of it (toward the house being constructed). Bob Furey stated that he was thinking of a reverse placement of the two so that equipment could not even get near the silt fence. Bruce Marshall, Esq., replied that the placement could be reversed if that was the Board’s preference. Brian Pratt agreed.

The Chairman stated that he was still uncomfortable with the idea of having a duplex constructed on Lot #8/122-2. He added that although adding the statements discussed to the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would make the application complete they were not yet physically added. Bruce Marshall, Esq., replied that this was understood and added that the

duplex issue could be resolved with deed restrictions. The Chairman stated that there were no

other issues with the application. Bruce Marshall, Esq., stated that a sample deed could be

provided to the Board before the next meeting. The Chairman noted that they would prefer a committed statement from the applicant as other members of the Board would be present at the

next meeting and they would prefer not to rehash the discussion at that time. He reiterated that the likely connectivity of two wetlands with a house on Lot #8/122-2 in between was the main concern of the Board. The Chairman asked for a consensus from the Board regarding the previously mentioned comments regarding a requirement for orange construction fencing 5’ away from the silt fencing satisfying the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Bob Furey added that a simple cover page should be added to the hydraulic calculations regarding pre and post-runoff. Cynthia Wilson of the Conservation Commission noted that she liked the statement suggested regarding that no construction equipment would go beyond the orange construction fencing. The board gave their consensus. The Chairman clarified that once these additions were made the application could be considered complete. He urged the applicant to clearly define a low density usage for Lot #8/122-2 as it would satisfy his concerns discussed this evening and that a duplex use did not equal low density in some Board member’s minds regardless of Zoning definitions. Bruce Marshall, Esq., stated that they would attempt to have something submitted to the Board prior to the next meeting.

Christine Quirk MOVED to adjourn the application of Dana Moody and Aaron McKenzie, Minor Subdivision, 3 Lots, Location: Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/122, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to May 9, 2006, at 8:30 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

McCURDY DEVELOPMENT, LLC (APPLICANT) Adjourned from 2/28/06

FREDERICK & CELIA LORDEN, TRUSTEES, (OWNERS)

Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing/Design Review

Major Subdivision/37 Lots

Location: McCurdy Road

Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 96

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Timothy Watson of Cuoco and Cormier who represented the applicant along with Dana Lorden. An abutter present was Cynthia Wilson. Interested parties were Kim Burkhamer, Conservation Commission, Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, Ken Lombard and Brandy Mitroff.

Timothy Watson stated that few comments were given at the recently held site walk. He noted that although it was difficult to access certain lots because of many trees, these trees would also provide ample screening between homes constructed on the lots. Timothy Watson added that on the site walk the proposed location for the driveway to Lot #12/19-1 was viewed and it was noted that 400’ of sight distance was present in both directions. He added that although the proposed road curved as it approached this driveway there was enough distance in between where in icy conditions a vehicle would go off the road well before it reached this lot. Timothy Watson then stated that grading of the proposed road to the subdivision was reviewed based on the Board’s comments at the last meeting and a -3% entrance grade off McCurdy Road was added to the plan. He noted that with this adjustment it would still be possible to get over an existing wetland crossing although the proposed road grade would steepen to 8% then lessen to 7% and flatten out to 2%. Timothy Watson further noted that there would be one stretch of 10% grade also, however, no driveways were proposed off this section of road and the road would then decrease to a 5% grade. He stated that another issue at the last meeting was the lot configuration in the northeast corner of the subdivision by Lot #37. Timothy Watson added that the developer was currently working with abutters who owned Lot #12/93-33 and were interested in possibly obtaining the upper portion of Lot #37 which was less than 4,000 s.f. which would result in a 50’ strip to a backlot by adjusting the property lines and creating a buffer for the potential buyer of the lot. He noted that the only other issue was two stacked lots noted by the board. The Chairman clarified that these lots appeared stacked based on the proposed location of their driveways. He asked if Lot #12/19-27 were extended to cut off the back portions of Lot #’s 12/19-25 and 12/19-26 if that would alleviate the stacking scenario. Bob Furey asked if Lot #’s 12/19-25 & 26 would then have less acreage. Timothy Watson replied that would be the case. The Chairman asked if there was a reason why the proposed driveway for Lot #12/19-27 was not off the cul-de-sac. Timothy Watson replied that it was not off the cul-de-sac in order to avoid a wetland crossing. Douglas Hill asked if the proposed driveway for Lot #12/19-28 crossed an existing wetland. Timothy Watson replied that there was a break in the wetlands and the driveway would essentially be on the property line. He added that if a driveway were placed between Lot #’s 12/19-25 & 26 it would be at the narrowest point crossing the wetlands. The Chairman suggested that decreasing the density of the lots could also solve this problem. Timothy Watson noted that the developer preferred to have two large lots given that there were 20 acres available in that area of the site.

The Chairman asked the lengths of the driveways to Lot #’s 12/19-28 and 12/19-29. Timothy Watson replied that they were approximately 950’ before splitting off to each lot. The Chairman wished to clarify that it was not possible to put Lot #12/19-28’s driveway off the cul-de-sac without crossing a wetland. Timothy Watson replied that was correct. Bob Furey asked if Lot #12/19-27 was extended as Timothy Watson suggested if Lot #12/19-28 would have the same proposed driveway access. Timothy Watson replied that it would. Bob Furey asked if Lot #12/19-28 was still considered a backlot. The Chairman felt that Lot #12/19-28 was still a backlot to Lot #’s 12/19-29, 30 and 31 and because of the access point of Lot #12/19-28 it was stacked behind Lot #12/19-29 & 31. Douglas Hill asked what the drawback was to putting the driveway to Lot #28 between Lot #’s 25 and 26 and wondered if it was to do with the amount of wetland crossing needed. Timothy Watson replied that currently they could stay under 10,000 s.f. of impact for all 3 wetland crossings, but if the Board preferred that location it would not be a problem. The Chairman thought that this would erase the backlot issue. He felt that Lot #12/19-25 was a backlot also. Timothy Watson suggested that he could reconfigure the lots so that Lot #24 would be a backlot and Lot #25 would be a frontage lot. The Chairman thought that this scenario would work but noted that the building envelope would be tight in the corner of Lot #25. Timothy Watson clarified that this was a well radius and not a building envelope. The Chairman noted that adding a 50’ strip to create a backlot would require the reconfiguration of Lot #12/19-25. Timothy Watson suggested that he could split the difference between Lot #’s 12/19-25 & 26 and in this way Lot #12/19-25 would be left with an access from Lot #12/19-28 between Lot #’s 12/19-25 & 26. The Chairman stated that if Lot #12/19-25 was reconfigured as a frontage lot then Lot #’s 12/19-28 & 29 would indisputably be backlots and there would only be one long driveway to the back. Douglas Hill asked if this scenario would affect the contiguous dry area on Lot #12/19-24. Timothy Watson replied that it would not as only 1.5 acres of contiguous dry land was needed.

Bob Furey noted that the proposed road cut through a large existing knob at station #5 on the plan to avoid wetlands. He asked if it would be possible to have the road travel around the knob. Timothy Watson replied that going around the knob would require small reverse curves which would not meet Town requirements and also compromise safety. Bob Furey noted that the road profile was at a 2% grade in this area and asked what the case would be for raising it 3 to 4%. Timothy Watson replied that he did not want the grade to be so high that it became necessary to extend the fill on the nearby wetland crossing. Bob Furey clarified that the proposed road entrance had been moved from the original location. Timothy Watson replied that was correct and that the original location had become a proposed driveway. Bob Furey stated that he was satisfied with the explanations provided by Timothy Watson but noted that the Board would be looking at the proposed side slopes closely as he assumed they would be 1:1 which was not the Board’s preference. The Coordinator noted that in situations where ledge was present 1:1 side slopes had been seen. Bob Furey noted that it was still a waiver situation as the Subdivision Regulations stated that 3:1 was the requirement. Timothy Watson stated that most of the existing knob may end up being cut away with the road’s construction. Bob Furey agreed that in that case the slopes may not even be there. He added that the road profile seemed to be well designed.

Timothy Watson stated that the applicant had contacted T.F. Moran regarding Susan Road as that developer was in the process of restarting its construction and the Lordens would be contacting those owners to work on the final layout of road connections. Abutter Cynthia Wilson noted the properties on the plan that she owned an interest in along with Alex Noftsger which were under conservation easement as they provided wildlife habitats for many animals including Blandings turtles which had been seen in the area. She added that Shaky Pond almost abutted these areas also and that NH Fish and Game was concerned that box or half-circle culverts be used in these locations as amphibians did not like to travel along the full metal types and preferred dirt. Cynthia Wilson stated that she was aware of generous conservation easements that had been provided by the developer but would also like to see one that included wetlands which she noted on the plan down to the large wetland area on McCurdy Road. She then noted areas on the NH Regional Environmental Planning Program which totaled approximately 150 acres which needed protection for animal traffic. Cynthia Wilson added that her property was near Shaky Pond and she had seen deer, ducks, moose, Blandings turtles, bobcat and coyotes and in order for this hierarchy to exist it was imperative that the smaller

animals in the chain survived. The Chairman thought that this could be accomplished without the loss of lots by tracing easements along the wetlands. Dana Lorden replied that he was agreeable to doing so. Timothy Watson thought that it would be possible to provide a wildlife corridor of 25’. Cynthia Wilson noted that 100’ would be more appropriate and added that perhaps the proposed easements could note that there would be no logging, dumping or drainage from the other lots into the easements. Timothy Watson suggested that a 50’ corridor might be possible. Bob Furey asked if the applicant would consider box culverts for the two crossings on the plan. Timothy Watson replied that this could be done and possibly for one driveway crossing also. Cynthia Wilson noted that in her experience with other developers box culverts were strongly suggested by NH DES and NH Fish and Game was also very involved in these aspects now due to a wide scale biodiversity study done by the New Boston Tracking Station. Kim Burkhamer, Conservation Commission, wished to thank Dana Lorden for his consideration regarding the proposed easements along the wetlands and that in reference to a letter she had drafted discussing the topography and drainage in these areas easements would be a wonderful addition to the plan.

Brandy Mitroff asked if deed restrictions would be placed on the large 20 acre lot proposed so that no further subdivision could occur. Timothy Watson replied that he did not believe this lot was subdividable. Brandy Mitroff noted that a proposed 50’ strip had the potential of becoming a road in the future even if this was not the intention of the current owner.

Dana Lorden stated that he was agreeable to provide a deed restriction for no further subdivision on the 20 acre lot.

Timothy Watson asked for the Board’s input regarding a proposed driveway that was accessed off a 9% grade on McCurdy Road. He noted the alternative to be cutting across two existing slopes from the proposed road along with additional wetland impacts where the current scenario had good sight distance and frontage. The Chairman asked Cynthia Wilson her opinion as a member of the Conservation Commission. Cynthia Wilson asked if a bridge was an option. The Chairman noted that the better environmental option would be to have the driveway enter off McCurdy Road. Cynthia Wilson commented that McCurdy Road curved and sloped in the area before the proposed driveway’s entrance which posed a safety issue. Timothy Watson noted that a waiver would be needed to keep the driveway where it was proposed as 8% was the maximum grade allowed as an entrance point. Douglas Hill thought that opinions from the Road Agent and Road Committee would be helpful. Bob Furey noted that the proposed driveway was approximately 100’ beyond the point where the curve ended on McCurdy Road. Roch Larochelle, Road Committee, stated that his initial reaction to this issue would be to suggest that the driveway be constructed off the proposed road, however, he understood the justification for having it off McCurdy Road and, therefore, had no opinion either way. Cynthia Wilson asked if the house proposed for Lot #1 could be placed between the wetland and the proposed road. Timothy Watson replied that by doing so Steep Slopes would be impacted. Douglas Hill thought that option was possible as long as its feasibility could be proven through engineering design. Dana Lorden thought that an access off McCurdy Road was a better choice as it would not impact the land in consideration of impending easements. The Chairman agreed.

Bob Furey asked if the proposed subdivision would be phased. Dana Lorden replied that he would most likely construct the subdivision in 3 phases. Douglas Hill asked if the proposed road would be phased along the same schedule and noted on the plan. Dana Lorden replied that it would as this was more feasible and financially appropriate. He asked if hammer heads were the norm when phasing a road. The Coordinator replied that temporary turnarounds were more common and some even remained as gravel surfaces in their interim. She noted that Susan Road had an offset but not a hammer head and that the Road Agent should weigh in on what he preferred. Douglas Hill asked if the subdivision proposed cisterns or fire sprinklers in the homes. Dana Lorden replied that although fire sprinkler systems were more costly for the project it was an easier route than cisterns.

Roch Larochelle stated that he would like to see the Traffic Impact Study take into account the impact to traffic on McCurdy and Bedford Road. Cynthia Wilson noted that it was difficult to turn left onto McCurdy Road from Bedford Road because the sight distance at that location was minimal. Timothy Watson stated that they would address this area when the Traffic Study was performed. Douglas Hill noted that traffic would be generated from Susan Road also. Roch Larochelle commented that this traffic would ultimately end up on McCurdy and Bedford Roads. Brandy Mitroff wondered if there would be an opportunity at some point to create a turning lane for traffic going left onto McCurdy Road from Bedford Road and how much land the Town owned on the Bedford Road perimeter to make that an option. Roch Larochelle asked Timothy Watson to point out the area of the proposed road which was at a 10% grade on the plan. Timothy Watson noted this area adding that it was in a straight stretch.

Bob Furey MOVED to grant the waiver requests captioned in a letter by Cuoco and Cormier dated February 13, 2006, until final plan submittal.

Roch Larochelle asked what the waiver items were. The Chairman replied that the list of waiver items was as follows: location of perc test pits, groundwater and soil test pits, test pit information log, streets bounding, approaching or within 400’, profiles of proposed streets, preliminary bridge and culvert design, information for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Watershed Outline and Drainage Computations, State/Federal/ Municipal approvals, checklist item #40: cost estimates, drainage systems and standard Planning Board notes.

Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Bob Furey MOVED to recommend that the preliminary application of McCurdy Development, LLC (Applicant), Frederick and Celia Lorden, Trustees, (Owners), Major Subdivision, 37 Lots, Location: McCurdy Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/19 & 96, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, be brought to final. “Conditional approval of the preliminary plan shall be valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of such conditional approval, at which time it shall become null and void, unless the condition has been performed or met, or unless extended in writing by the Board.” (Subdivision

Regulations, Section IV-e, 9.) Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

The Chairman appointed Planning Board alternate, Douglas Hill a voting member for this evening.

At 8:50 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.

BYAM, IVAN & VISTA ROAD, LLC

Submission of Application/Public Hearing

Major Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment

Location: Byam Road

Tax Map/Lot #’s 6/40-1, 6/40-2 & 6/40-3

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District & Commercial “Com” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bryan de Jesus and Brian Desfosses of Eric C. Mitchell and Associates. Also present was the applicant Ivan Byam and Steve Dunbar. An interested party was Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission.

Bryan de Jesus stated that Lot #’s 6/40-1 and 6/40-3 were owned by Ivan Byam and his mother and they were trying to create an access to Lot #6/40-2 along Byam Road and create a lot for commercial use. He noted that green lines drawn on sheet #2 of the plan represented the original lot lines and the new proposed lot lines were in red which would result in the creation of a 5.64 acre lot with 2.01 residential acres and 3.50 commercial acres. This left Lot #6/40-1 with 2.13 acres. Bryan de Jesus explained that due to a Zoning Amendment passed in 2004 the lots had dual zoning and State Subdivision Approval had been received. He added that he had also addressed the Planning Department’s comments.

The Chairman asked which lot was voted to Commercial status. Bryan de Jesus replied that 3.63 acres of Lot #6/40-1 was Commercial and the remaining 2.01 acres was Residential-Agricultural. The Chairman asked if the 3.63 acres would remain Commercial. Bryan de Jesus replied that it would. The Chairman then asked the current location of the Commercial lot. Bryan de Jesus replied that the Amendment stated that the Commercial lot could run 300’ along Byam Road and this was currently an indeterminate area, therefore, the applicant sought to better define the boundaries. Douglas Hill clarified that the Commercial lot was in between two Residential-Agricultural lots. Bryan de Jesus replied that was correct. The Chairman asked if the applicant had plans for the Commercial lot. Bryan de Jesus replied that no plans were in process as of yet. The Chairman asked the applicant if he intended to put a feed store on the Commercial lot at some point in the future. Ivan Byam replied that he did.

The Chairman asked if the applicant had obtained a State Driveway Permit. Bryan de Jesus replied that the applicant proposed to close off the existing second access to Lot # #6/40-1 and create a new access off Byam Road. Steve Dunbar stated that a hearing had been held three years prior where the State denied access to Lot #6/40-1 from NH Route 13. He added that because there were already 3 State Driveway Permits for the main portion of the site the State

would not allow any more. Douglas Hill asked if there was an easement between Lot #’s 6/40-1 and 6/40-3. The Coordinator clarified that this was a 50’ strip that went out to Byam Road and would be part of Lot #6/40-2 but would eventually be where the road would go. Christine Quirk asked if the lots would be used as two different parcels. Ivan Byam explained that the roadway would access what was the old farm and the Commercial/Residential combination lot would remain as it was. Bob Furey asked if the proposed driveway would be off the future road access or off Byam Road. Ivan Byam replied that it would be off Byam Road to the Commercial parcel.

He added that he resided on one of the Residential lots and owned the existing structure on the other Residential lot.

The Chairman asked how future development would be handled on the Residential/Commercial lot. The Coordinator explained that two usages could not be operated on one lot and it also could not be subdivided because the State would not issue another Driveway Permit.

Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, asked if she could obtain a copy of the plan. The Chairman asked that she be given one of the copies supplied to the Board. Cynthia Wilson asked if this proposal was intended in order to obtain a right-of-way for future development or if it was in response to Christine Bowman’s (NHDES) letter regarding wetland crossings. Brian Desfosses replied that this proposal was a fee simple transfer exclusive of the wetland crossing permit issue and that this proposal involved a subdivision providing an access road to Lot #6/40-2. He added that there were slope easements to allow for proper grading.

Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waivers for the requirements of Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the application of Ivan Byam and Vista Road, LLC, Major Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location: Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #’s 6/40-1, 6/40-2 and 6/40-3, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District and Commercial “Com” District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

The Board determined that a site walk was not necessary as they were familiar with this area.

Christine Quirk MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Ivan Byam and Vista Road, LLC, for Tax Map/Lot #6/40-1, 6/40-2 & 6/40-3, N.H. Route 13 a/k/a River Road, Byam and Wilson Hill Roads, such that Parcel A of 0.28 acres and Parcel C of 0.44 acres will be annexed from Tax Map/Lot #6/40-3 to 6/40-2, Parcel B of 0.08 acres will be annexed from Tax Map/Lot #6/40-1 to 6/40-2, and Parcel D of 2.31 acres will be annexed from Tax Map/Lot #6/40-3 to newly created Lot #6/40-1-1, 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. Payment of any outstanding fees including the cost of recording the mylar 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 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.

Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

LOCUS FIELD, LLC

Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Subdivision/NRSPR/Condominium

Location: Hopkins Road

Tax Map/Lot #13/15

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, and Rob Starace and Will Poirier of Locus Field, LLC. An interested party was Cynthia Wilson of the Conservation Commission.

Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant had received State Subdivision Approval for 8 bedroom loading but proposed a 6 bedroom loading with an existing duplex converted to a 2 unit condominium. He noted that the Condominium name proposed was Salisbury Crossing. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he had submitted waivers for Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies and Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. He added that under the recent amendments to Steep Slopes critical areas were identified and the proposed deeds would have a requisite statement for those critical areas along with condominium documentation that reference that the deeds must be conveyed with such statements. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the each unit would have its own well and leach field and a limited common area averaging 13,000 to 14,000 s.f. and a common area of 65,773 s.f. He noted that the square footage of each unit, all levels, was 3,179 s.f. Rob Starace wished to note that the square footage above the basement level of the units was 2,100 s.f.

The Chairman asked who owned the duplex. Rob Starace replied that he did. The Chairman asked if each unit of the duplex was sold to a buyer who mowed the lawn and plowed the driveway. Rob Starace replied that each owner would tend to their limited common area and as far as plowing the driveway entrance would be shared but then split off to each unit. The Chairman asked how this proposal was a condominium and why someone would want to own it versus a duplex. Rob Starace replied that a potential buyer would have the opportunity to purchase one unit for approximately $285K and obtain the square footage of a single family

home for less money. He added that the units were very nice with farmer’s porches and decks and the only sacrifice a buyer would make would be that another occupant lived on the other side of them. Rob Starace further added that it could be noted in the condominium documents that certain items such as snow plowing the driveway needed to be addressed between each unit owner. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the basic saving in a condex was the land cost where an owner obtained a $150K lot for half the price.

Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, asked about a kettle hole which was a natural feature on the site where bear tracks had been observed at the time of the Conservation

Commission’s site walk. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the kettle hole was located on the southern

lot of the site and was protected by a declaration of covenants.

Rob Starace stated that this proposal offered a condominium scenario without a condominium fee. Christine Quirk noted she would not like to be the owner with a leaking roof on her side of the structure and have the neighboring unit owner not be willing to contribute towards fixing it. Rob Starace replied that this was why the condominium documents would reflect that each owner was responsible for his side of the structure. The Chairman asked what divided the unit. Rob Starace replied that a 2 hour fire wall with a sound barrier was the dividing feature. The Chairman asked if there were any abutters present and there were none.

Douglas Hill MOVED to grant the waivers for the requirement of the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Bob Furey MOVED to accept the application of Locus Field, LLC, Subdivision/NRSPR/Condominium, Location: Hopkins Road, Tax Map/13/15, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Douglas Hill asked if this subdivision was an ongoing project as there were 8 other lots that would go through this application process. Rob Starace stated that it was ok for the Board to drive to the lots anytime they wished to view them. The Coordinator stated that if the site was built to plan then a set of Conditions Subsequent was not necessary. The Chairman asked if the structure on site was built to plan. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was. Rob Starace noted that he would be requesting his Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Department in the next two weeks.

Bob Furey MOVED to approve the Condominium Subdivision and Site Plan, Unit A & Unit B, Locus Field, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #13/15, Hopkins 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 plans at the

HCRD.

The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be July 31, 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 prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that

the Planning Board may convene a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the

approval. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

CHRETIEN, GEORGE AND DONNA

Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Subdivision/NRSPR/Condominium

Location: 88 Colburn Road

Tax Map/Lot #144

Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District

The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, and the applicant George Chretien.

Bob Todd, LLS, stated that this proposal was similar to that of Locus Field, LLC, however, the site was off a Class V gravel surfaced roadway. He noted that the property was located at the eastern junction of Colburn Road and NH Route 136. Bob Todd, LLS, stated the existing structure on the site was once a furniture shop which was later converted to a duplex which the applicant purchased and then rented units from. He added that the proposal was to convert the duplex into a condominium and that each interior of the structure was a 1,400 s.f. mirror image of the other. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that the Site Plan had been revised to show two additional parking areas which could also be used as turn around areas for emergency vehicles. He added that one septic system and well would be shared between the units and that the site was on 1.04 acres with a small wetland in the northeast corner. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the soils on site were classified as Canton or Group 2 soils with an erodibility factor of less than 0.43, therefore, not high risk. He added that the slopes on site were less than 8%.

Bob Todd, LLS, stated that condominium documents had been submitted along with waiver requests for Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. He noted that he had overlooked an additional waiver request which he was submitting tonight for the requirement of Site Specific Soils Mapping.

Douglas Hill asked if the duplex was existing. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it had been in existence for approximately 20 years. George Chretien clarified that the existing structure had been converted to a duplex in the year 2000. The Chairman asked what the duplex was worth market wise and how much the rent was on each side. George Chretien replied that he had purchased the duplex in September, 2005, for $300K and the rents were $1,100.00 and $1,200.00. The Chairman asked the applicant if had calculated the number of years it would

take him to recoup his investment. George Chretien replied that he had not but that the applicant for the previous application spoke well to why converting duplexes to condominiums was financially prudent. The Chairman clarified that each side of the condominium could be sold for more than the cost of the purchase price. Douglas Hill noted that the condominium documents would need to be different from those of the application that was heard previous to this one as

this proposal shared a well and septic system. George Chretien agreed and noted that because

the whole lot was considered common area a condominium association would come into play.

Bob Furey asked if the site was always a 1.04 acre lot which would suggest that it was grandfathered from the Town’s minimum two acre requirement. George Chretien replied that to

his knowledge it had always been a 1.04 acre lot.

Bob Furey MOVED to grant the waivers requested in a letter from Bob Todd, LLS, on March 14, 2006, for Site Specific Soils Mapping and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies, and to accept the application as complete.

Douglas Hill noted that there was an outstanding fee of $173.00. George Chretien stated that this check had been mailed and was en route to the Planning Department. Bob Todd, LLS, vouched for George Chretien and stated that his business relationship with him had not been compromised.

Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Because the structure was existing the Chairman did not think a site walk was necessary. He asked if all the site improvements had been made. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this had been done with the exception of the additional parking spaces. Christine Quirk thought that a drive by to view the parking areas would suffice. Douglas Hill asked if the proposed parking spaces would be constructed off the existing driveway. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that would be the case.

The Coordinator explained that generally the completion of the parking spaces would need to be confirmed by the Board before a Certificate of Occupancy could be issued. The Chairman asked George Chretien when he anticipated having the parking spaces completed. George Chretien thought that they would be completed in the next month or two. Douglas Hill stated that the applicant should inform the Planning Department when this was done. The Coordinator added that a compliance hearing could be scheduled after the drive bys were done to confirm that the parking spaces were finished.

Christine Quirk MOVED to approve the Condominium Subdivision and Site Plan, Unit A & Unit B, George & Donna Chretien, Tax Map/Lot #1/44, Colburn 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. Execution of a Site Review Agreement;

5. Submission of any outstanding application fees and the fees for recording the Site Review Agreement at the HCRD.

The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be July 31, 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 prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that

the Planning Board may convene a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.

CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT:

1. All site improvements are to be completed as per the approved site plans.

2. The Town of New Boston Planning Department shall be notified by the applicant that

all improvements, have been completed, and are ready for final inspection, prior to

scheduling a compliance hearing on those improvements, a minimum of three (3)

weeks prior to the anticipated date of compliance hearing;

3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be submitted;

Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Damien Martineau was present in the audience and although not scheduled on the agenda this evening, wished to introduce himself to the Board as future applicant and new owner of Shipwrecks Restaurant in New Boston. Damien Martineau stated that he currently resided in Washington, DC, but was a native of Pelham, New Hampshire and wished to move back to New Hampshire which was why he purchased Shipwrecks. He added that he wished to improve the efficiency of the restaurant, bring it up to code and would, therefore, like to present his plan to Board in May, 2006, with the help of Sandford Survey and Engineering who he had commissioned for the project.

Damien Martineau stated that he was a professional chef who had graduated form the Culinary Institute of America and he was currently a corporate chef for a large company in Washington, DC, which provided meals for the House of Representatives, State Department, etc. He returned to the subject of Shipwrecks noting that he hoped to expand the hours of operation and offer take-out dining as well as in house seating, home delivery and revise certain aspects of the restaurant such as the ice cream bar. Damien Martineau added that he also wanted to revise the front of the existing building and change the layout inside which would most likely require variances from the Town. He explained that in doing so he hoped to take advantage of the river views at the back of the restaurant and create more ambiance. Damien Martineau noted that he did not intend to increase the current seating capacity as he believed those limitations had been met. The Chairman clarified that these limitations were due to the septic system on site.

Damien Martineau summarized that he had gotten a good deal on the purchase price for the restaurant and thought it would be a good opportunity to improve it. He asked if the Board needed to know what the proposed hours of operation would be. The Chairman replied that those hours should be proposed when the plan was presented and that although the Board would not seek to limit those hours the plan would hold the applicant to them, therefore, employees’

hours should be taken into consideration before and after hours open to the public. He added that the Board was also interested in tasteful and safe exterior lighting. Christine Quirk noted that this lighting should not be disruptive to neighbors. Damien Martineau asked if there were any other issues he should be aware of. Douglas Hill replied that Sandford Survey and Engineering

would be of guidance. The Chairman noted that any decisions by the Board regarding the plan would be based on what was allowed by Zoning. Damien Martineau thought that a big restriction would be the existing septic system but the proposal of offering carry out meals would probably not play a role in that. The Chairman agreed.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2006

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

Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of February 28, 2006, as written. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

2. The minutes of March 28, 2006, were distributed for approval at the meeting of April 25, 2006, with or without changes.

3. Endorsement of a Site Plan for William R., IV & Bianca J. Matheson for a Truck Service/Farm & Garden Tractor Sales & Service Facility, 506 Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/116-2, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.

Because multiple signature sheets were required the Chairman stated that the above noted Site Plan would be endorsed at the end of the meeting. The same was determined for item #’s 4 & 5.

4. Endorsement of a Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for Samuel Philip Brooks et al, Tax Map/Lot #4/40 & 4/69, Pine Road, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.

5. Endorsement of a Major Subdivision Plan for Norman E. & Barbara Gagnon, Tax Map/Lot #12/110, Laurel Lane & McCurdy Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.

6. Driveway Permit Application for Norman and Barbara Gagnon, Laurel Lane, Tax Map/Lot #12/110-1, for the Board’s action.

Because no Board members had viewed the driveway for the above noted lot it was

determined that they would address the Driveway Permit at the next meeting. The Coordinator noted that there was an issue with this Driveway Permit as it went to the Road Agent prior to the approval of the subdivision plan but the Road Agent had not acted on the permit and now felt there was a sight distance issue with this driveway which he wanted the Board to view.

7. A copy of a letter received April 8, 2006, from Laura Robbins, 76 Helena Drive, to New Boston Board of Selectmen, Re: Pothier/Pare Site Plan, 40 Helena Drive, Tax Map/Lot #3/21, was distributed for the Board’s information.

The Coordinator explained that Laura Robbins was an abutter to the above noted Site Plan and the above noted letter was an example of what Town Counsel said might arise regarding residents who did not want improvements made to Helena Drive. Bob Furey asked if one person’s opinion would be enough. The Coordinator replied that one person’s opinion would be something that the Selectmen would consider when weighing the options of considering such improvements.

8. Site inspection notes, Re: Right Way Builders, Inc., Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/29, were distributed for the Board’s information.

9a. Correspondence to John Melito from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Whipplewill Road, New Boston, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.

Addressed with item #9b.

9b. A draft copy of a letter to John Melito from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Whipplewill Road, New Boston, was distributed for the

Board’s review and discussion.

The Coordinator explained that John Melito was the new owner of Lot #3/63-8 which abutted Lot #3/63-24 which was recently rezoned from RA to Commercial at John Neville’s request. She explained that Mr. Melito had purchased the lot in January, 2006, which was between the public hearings with the Planning Board for zoning and ballot vote in March. This meant that Mr. Melito had probably missed a lot of the publicity about the proposed change. The Coordinator noted that Mr. Melito was concerned about the process and her draft letter attempted to address all the issues Mr. Melito raised in his correspondence. The Board directed the Coordinator to send her letter.

10. Read File: Announcement from SNHPC, Green Region Energy Forum, April 17, 2006.

The Chairman and Board member, Bob Furey (in the Secretary and Vice Chairman’s absence) endorsed the plans noted in item #’s 3, 4 & 5.

At 10:18 p.m. Bob Furey MOVED to adjourn. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne O’Brien,

Recording Clerk Minutes Approved: