 |
Planning Board Minutes of June 27,2006
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members James Nordstrom and Don Duhaime; ex-officio Christine Quirk; and, alternate Douglas Hill. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were Roch Larochelle, Cynthia Wilson, Ken Lombard, Earl Sandford, LLS, Damian and Sonia Martineau, Walt Gleason, Rick Martin, Pat Panciocco, Esq., Rick Kohler, Pat Golding, Kim Burkhamer, Brent Armstrong, Tom Clapp, Mike Ryan, Esq., Mike Carter, Dorothy and Jessica Eisenhaure, Jim Edwards, LLS, Jeff Hudson, Robert and Connie Brown, Dave Plantier, Kelly Coco, Chris Golomb, Bob Ault, Dave and Cheryl Paquette, Mica Stark, and Jeff LaRoche.
MARTINEAU, DAMIAN & SONIA
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Replacement of Existing Restaurant (Shipwreck’s)
Location: 737 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #3/127
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman made Douglas Hill a voting member in Bob Furey's absence.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, of Sandford Surveying and Engineering, architect Walt Gleason and the applicants Damian and Sonia Martineau. An interested party was Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that he wished to present the site plan aspects this evening of what was the former Shipwreck’s Restaurant and that he had been involved with the site previously when design upgrades were made to the septic system by the prior owners. He noted that this proposal involved no changes to the existing septic, parking spaces or utilities and would concentrate on reconstruction of the building according to the existing footprint with minor square footage adjustments. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that the proposed building would be shifted slightly back from its present location along the river. Damian Martineau wished to note that the new design proposed would be approximately the same square footage of 41’ X 50’ with the main
change being a basement versus the current dug out foundation and a small second story office measuring 20’ X 20’. He added that he would like to have a retail area in the proposed restaurant to feature locally produced goods while the eating area would be raised slightly higher than what was existing with windows along the river side to take advantage of the view. Damian Martineau stated that he felt this plan offered a nice design for what would be a good restaurant. He added that the hours of operation proposed were broad to give him the flexibility of determining traffic patterns of patrons and that while he would initially offer lunch and dinner he ultimately planned to include breakfast in the future.
The architect for the applicant, Walt Gleason, reiterated that the proposed footprint was almost identical to the existing one but was shifted back from the river edge and slightly over. He added that meeting the challenge to offering river side dining meant that the kitchen be located at the front of the building but disguised by stone massing on the outside for aesthetics from the road view. Walt Gleason noted that a big issue in raising the proposed structure up three feet to accommodate river views from the dining room was assuring that required handicapped ramps would then meet building codes. He added that the proposed ramps would either be located at the front of the building or around the corner to a side door access. Walt Gleason stated that he was aware of
the 44 seat limitation per the capabilities of the existing septic system and that the design showed 4 seats at a breakfast bar plus 40 in the main dining area. He noted that a porch roof was proposed over the handicapped ramp and a loading dock would be camouflaged by a half gable roof to mask the utilitarian aspects of the restaurant. Walt Gleason stated that the value gained by this design afforded a view of the river from the split level dining area along with a gas fireplace for added character. He noted that the proposed 20’ X 20’ office space on the second floor would have a bumped out portion along the roof line that would have scripted lettering for the restaurant’s name which would enhance its character. Walt Gleason added that asphalt shingles, cedar siding and craftsman style columns for the porch area were also proposed as subtle changes that would welcome patrons as they crossed into the town of New Boston, NH.
Damian Martineau stated that in addition to the restaurant he hoped to provide catering to executive jets at the Manchester Airport in the future. He added that he planned to offer, as a seasonal business onsite, an ice cream bar that would be a mobile structure resembling the Town’s bandstand gazebo but approximately one half to two thirds the size. Damian Martineau proposed that one or two restaurant employees would serve ice cream to patrons from this gazebo with seating available at picnic tables behind it. The Chairman asked if this meant that 20 outdoor seasonal seats would be added to the plan. Damian Martineau replied that was correct.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Damian and Sonia Martineau, NRSPR, Replacement of Existing Restaurant (Shipwreck’s), Location: 737 River Road, Tax Map/Lot # 3/127, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman asked if the proposed sign for the restaurant would be illuminated. Damian Martineau replied that the back chimney area would hold exterior lights that would shine onto the script but that the letters in the sign itself would not light up. He was unsure at this point if he would use the name “Damian’s” or “Martineau’s” as the name of the proposed restaurant.
Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, stated that she had not viewed the area of riverbank behind the existing building on site in 30 years and at that time it had been laden with refuse. In consideration of offering a river view she asked the applicant if he proposed a clean up of that area. Damian Martineau replied that he planned to fence an area behind the proposed restaurant and would angle the fence so that it was not too visible from the dining area. He added that there was a 20’ to 25’ drop off to the river that was laden with trash which could be cleaned out at some point in the future but that he initially planned to landscape the upper banking which would be more visible to dining patrons. Cynthia Wilson noted that she was unsure of the
procedure that might need to be followed in cleaning along the river’s edge and that the Piscataquog Watershed Association might be able to offer some guidance. She noted that the Piscataquog River was protected at the State level and Janet White, New Boston’s representative for the Piscataquog River Local Advisory Committee, was another contact the applicant may wish to seek out.
James Nordstrom asked if the existing well on site had been approved at the State level as a transient non-community service or if this subject was brought up when the septic system was approved two years prior. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that he was unsure but that the Board of Health would also have had involvement in that status and he would look into it. Christine Quirk noted that in order to gain approval by the Board of Health the well numbers would have to have been supplied. The Chairman stated that other minor issues with the plan included a correction to abutters’ deed references. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that Ray Shea, LLS, had made all corrections noted by the Coordinator’s review which included the 100 year flood line with
elevations, dimensions of the building, deed references, maximum building coverage, etc. He stated that the maximum building coverage of the lot was 1% where up to 30% was allowed. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that another item addressed was the 5’ wide handicapped ramp which was proposed with a covered wooden overhang and wooden rails compliant with ADA. He noted that he felt all of the Coordinator’s checklist items had been addressed on the current plan. The Chairman stated that the hours of operation proposed were 5:30 a.m. to 2:30 a.m. seven days a week. The Coordinator asked if the hours of operation were intended to include the public or were that broad to include preparation time by employees. Damian Martineau replied that the answer might be both because he was not yet living in the community and he did not know how he would adjust those hours until he had viewed traffic patterns and get a better sense of when patrons would
be apt to come to the restaurant. The Coordinator suggested that the Board may want to consider this point as the proposed business was a pre-existing non-conforming use in a residential neighborhood. Damian Martineau stated that he assumed that patrons would thin out by 11:00 p.m. on week nights. Christine Quirk stated that an abutter to the site had approached her and stated that he was optimistic about the impending new restaurant but questioned whether loud music would be played on site during weekend hours. Damian Martineau replied that the design of the proposed structure would inhibit any large bands because of space limitations although he might offer some form of live music indoors. He added that once the business was up and running he would like to revisit the sewer flow rates and if possible add a lounge in the basement area which would initially be used as a prep kitchen for offsite catering. He added that this was one of the reasons
he wanted to employ new technology to reduce water flow such as automatic shutoffs on bathroom sinks and waterless urinals which may ultimately allow more seats in the restaurant.
The Chairman stated that the applicant should contact NH DES to assure that they had no concerns about the river bank. Cynthia Wilson added that the Conservation Commission might have interest in conducting a site walk. Douglas Hill stated that he did not feel a need to walk the site as there were no changes proposed to the existing septic system and the proposed building would stay within the existing footprint. James Nordstrom added that he was familiar with the site except for the area behind the existing building along the river bank. Damian Martineau stated that in light of a minor correspondence glitch with the Fire Chief regarding a demolition schedule he would be in contact with him the next day for a demolition date and then, if his plan was approved,
thought that the construction schedule would be approximately four months in length so that he could open for the year end holiday season. He noted that he had employed local contractor Gary Chicoine. Cynthia Wilson stated that she would bring up the subject of a possible site walk at the Conservation Commission’s next meeting which was to be held July 6, 2006, and that the only reason she felt the Conservation Commission might want to walk the site was to determine if NH DES should view it. The Chairman commented that because the Conservation Commission’s recommendations would involve future clean up plans and not initial construction work to the site the Board was likely to pass any comments onto the applicant as recommendations.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Non-Residential Site Plan Application by Damian and Sonia Martineau, to replace an existing one story 2,158 s.f. restaurant & building with a 2,244 s.f. restaurant & building, 8' x 12' walk-in cooler, full basement and second story office on Tax Map/Lot #3/127, N.H. Route 13 a/k/a River 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. Execution of a Site Review Agreement.
The deadline for complying 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 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;
4. A compliance hearing shall be held to determine that the site improvements have been satisfactorily completed, prior to releasing the hold on the issuance of any Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy, or both. No occupancy/use of the restaurant shall be permitted until the site improvements as noted have been completed, and a site inspection and compliance hearing held.
The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be June 1, 2007, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing for each phase as noted in item #4 above. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
GARRETSON, DONALD E., RIGHT WAY BUILDERS, INC.
& LUNEAU, GARY L. & JOANNE B.
Adjourned from 6/13/06
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment /15 Lots
Location: Beard Road
Tax Map/Lot #5/50, 5/52, 5/52-1 & 5/53
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Pat Panciocco, Esq., Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, of Sandford Surveying and Engineering, Rick Kohler of Robert Todd Land Use Services and the applicant Rick Martin. Interested parties present were Pat Golding, Kim Burkhamer, Roch Larochelle, Brent Armstrong, Tom Clapp, and an attorney for the concerned residents of Beard Road, Mike Ryan.
Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that the proposal had evolved into a 15 lot subdivision with a single access and cul-de-sac and that the first issue she wished to discuss involved the applicants request for a waiver to the proposed cul-de-sac length. She noted that in her interpretation of the Subdivision Regulations a waiver could be considered if it was determined that a dual access or looped road was deemed impractical. Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that the proposed cul-de-sac was 2,800’ in length. The Chairman thought that the Board had already agreed to a waiver on the cul-de-sac length at a prior meeting. James Nordstrom clarified that if a piece of land was found not to be able to accommodate a looped road the Board had the ability to waive its proposed
cul-de-sac length.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waiver requested for the proposed cul-de-sac length of 2,800’. Douglas Hill seconded the motion.
Mike Ryan, Esq., stated that as a representative for concerned Beard Road residents he was opposed to the waiver on the table as it was three times the maximum length allowed per the Subdivision Regulations and thought that it would pose a safety issue. He asked if the Fire Wards had rendered their opinion via a written response as he was under the impression that this issue was due to be discussed at their July, 2006, meeting. Mike Ryan, Esq., added that he had recently read a letter from the Police Chief who had given an opinion on the matter that was neither in favor nor against the length proposed. He then questioned whether school buses would travel to the end of the cul-de-sac to pick up and drop off children or whether they would be required to walk to the Beard
Road entrance. Mike Ryan, Esq., felt that such a waiver was not in keeping with the intentions of the Master Plan and that the proposed cul-de-sac was a cul-de-sac to nowhere. The Chairman replied that this was what a cul-de-sac was by definition. Mike Ryan, Esq., replied that he disagreed as many cul-de-sacs were designed in the hope of future development access roads. The Chairman did not feel that statement was an accurate one. Douglas Hill agreed. Mike Ryan, Esq., further disagreed and felt that a 2,800’ cul-de-sac was proposed merely to maximize the lots for the applicant. James Nordstrom asked why Mike Ryan, Esq., felt that waiving the cul-de-sac length was contrary to the Master Plan. Mike Ryan, Esq., replied that a 15 lot subdivision could easily become a 30 unit duplex neighborhood on the proposed cul-de-sac which would be in contrast to the Master Plan’s call for low density subdivisions. The Coordinator
noted that the Master Plan which Mike Ryan, Esq., referenced was written in 1997 and the Zoning Regulations were updated in 1990, to reference the suggestions in the Master Plan and to include one and two family dwellings in the “R-A” District, therefore, until a new Master Plan triggered changes to Zoning the proposed subdivision did not go against any specifications of the current Master Plan. Christine Quirk asked if the proposed lots were for single family homes. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the plan specified “conventional” lots. The Chairman noted that based on previous discussions with the applicant there was reason to assume that these lots could be duplexed and condexed in the future which was allowed in the “R-A” District. He added that it was the Board’s responsibility to assume that any proposed subdivisions in “R-A” District could have that scenario. He did not feel that it was
reasonable to think that the applicant would give up that right. Rick Martin agreed. Interested party Pat Golding stated that he felt it was a reasonable request. Pat Panciocco, Esq., stated that cul-de-sacs in excess of the maximum required length for other applications had been waived by the Board and in contrast this proposed subdivision offered minimal development impacts, a significant parcel of land donated to the Town and fire sprinkler installations to homes on the lots in addition to a cistern for the neighborhood. Pat Golding was against the proposal and thought that this development was unlike any other in the area. Douglas Hill noted that there was a duplex development constructed in the 1980’s on Styles Road. The Chairman also noted the 9 recent duplexes approved on Hopkins Road. Pat Golding thought that the proposed subdivision posed a density issue. The Chairman stated that the issue on the table was whether the
Board would waive the cul-de-sac length proposed and the Board’s answer during previous discussions had been that they would. He added that there were further issues with the lot layouts that still needed discussion, however, the current motion being granted was not for the final plan. The motion PASSED unanimously.
Rick Kohler submitted a simple sketch plan that illustrated how Lot #5/50-11 would wrap around Lot #5/50-10 to be reconfigured as an acceptable backlot. Rick Martin stated that the Coordinator had mentioned this point to him one day prior and the plan would now be revised to represent what Rick Kohler had explained. Rick Kohler stated that the applicant proposed to merge Lot #5/52-1 with Parcel A and Lot #5/53 with Parcel B. The Chairman asked who owned Lot #5/53. Rick Martin replied that it was owned by Mr. Luneau and that because both parcels were open space areas that no one wanted he decided to add one parcel to his 5 acre condex lot, #5/52-1, and Mr. Luneau was in agreement to buy the other parcel to add to his lot, #5/53.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the Lot Line Adjustments as shown on the Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment Plat Lands of Right Way Builders, Inc., Donald E. Garretson, Trustee, and Gary L. and Joanne B. Luneau, Beard Road, such that Parcel A of 0.617 acres is annexed from Tax Map/Lot #5/52 to Tax Map/Lot #5/52-1 and Parcel B of 0.303 acres is annexed from Tax Map/Lot #5/52 to Tax Map/Lot #5/53, leaving Tax Map/Lot # 5/52 with 98.87’ of frontage, including associated roadside flares to be used as access to major subdivision of 15 residential lots and one conservation lot still pending before the New Boston Planning Board, subject
to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) copies of the revised plat that include all
checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2. Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3. Submission of a revised Declaration of Condominium for Tax Map/Lot #5/52-1 to include the change in lot lines.
4. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application.
The deadline for complying with the condition(s) precedent shall be August 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 prior to that date, an administrative NOTICE OF DENIAL shall be issued without further action of the Board being required.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion.
Mike Ryan, Esq., asked if the width of the proposed entrance off Beard Road into the subdivision was acceptable for emergency equipment. Douglas Hill thought that the easement provided should cover that issue. Rick Martin noted that he had given that easement when he had subdivided land from the Sizemore property. Mike Ryan, Esq., asked if this meant that Mr. Luneau would be subject to that easement and if that was in writing. Rick Martin replied that he would and if it was not already in writing that it would be. The Chairman thought it unlikely that the applicant would have requested a lot line adjustment that would go against this. Rick Martin noted that Bob Todd, LLS, had drawn up these easements based
on a four rod road starting from Route 77 but that he would confirm the information. Douglas Hill asked if the applicant preferred that the motion be tabled until that confirmation. Rick Martin replied that he would prefer this in order to confirm the easement language. Douglas Hill retracted the motion.
The Chairman stated that the Road Committee’s recent review letter could be forwarded to the applicant. The Coordinator then provided a copy. The Chairman then asked the applicant if it would be possible to move the proposed cistern up to the frontage of the lot that was encumbered by a detention pond and slope and drainage easements which would then make the lot a “utility lot” and avoid encumbering two lots with unsightly utilities. Rick Martin replied that the Fire Department had wanted the cistern located at the 2000’ mark along the proposed road so that their hoses could reach the end. James Nordstrom asked if the “end” meant in the direction of the Beard Road entrance to the subdivision. Rick Martin replied that was
correct. The Chairman returned to the subject of the detention pond and noted that there was an existing one in the Waldorf Estates subdivision in Town that was aesthetically pleasing and that one looking like it should not cost any more to construct. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that they had chosen the flattest and most natural looking place to excavate for the proposed detention pond in lieu of land they had given to the Town. Rick Martin asked the Chairman if he preferred that the detention pond held water. The Chairman replied that he would. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that this was a possibility but that he would not want to install a liner in the pond. The Chairman wondered how the detention pond in Waldorf Estates continually held water. Interested party Brent Armstrong replied that this was most likely the way that pond was designed. The Chairman asked if that pond was lined. Brent Armstrong replied that it was not. Roch Larochelle noted that detention ponds
could be designed to hold water if natural wet levels were present on site. The Chairman noted that in the applicant’s case the problem with the proposed detention pond was that it encumbered a substantial portion of the lot it was located on. Rick Martin replied that even with the pond there was still a 150’ X 100’ building envelope available on that lot. Rick Kohler added that the narrowest point on the lot was just in excess of 100’ and extended 210’ to the proposed road frontage which was ample room for a septic system. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, agreed with the Chairman’s comments that a detention pond with a perpetual water level was not a big cost item but he was hesitant to make a commitment to it at this juncture. Rick Martin wondered if an easy solution would be to have the drain in the pond removed. Douglas Hill noted that if the water table in the area of the detention pond was not elevated enough it
would not hold a water level anyway. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that he was unsure the soil type in that area would accommodate a pond as it was very drainable. The Chairman stated that he was concerned that the detention pond would appear to be an ugly hole on the lot. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it would be loamed and seeded. The Chairman clarified that the detention pond would hold water when it rained or appear as a grassy hole when dry. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that would be the case. James Nordstrom asked the applicant if he had received Site Specific for the lot in question. Rick Martin replied that he had. Rick Kohler likened the detention pond to the grassed depression of the center lawn wrapped by Mill Street. The Chairman reiterated that it still seemed peculiar to him that the proposed detention pond consumed so much of the lot. Douglas Hill clarified that the size of the detention pond was
based on engineering calculations. Rick Martin replied that was correct.
Roch Larochelle asked if the frontage of the land purchased from Mr. Luneau was
acquired in consideration of future improvements to Beard Road. The Chairman thought that such an agreement had been considered. Rick Martin agreed and noted that he had deeded easements on either side of Beard Road all the way to NH Route 77. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE added that he thought the deeding was done 25’ from the centerline of the road.
Douglas Hill noted that the proposed cul-de-sac circle was oversized and asked if the applicant planned to keep it vegetated with trees. Rick Martin replied that this could be done. Douglas Hill then asked if the cul-de-sac would have some type of drainage. Roch Larochelle replied that it should. Rick Martin stated that he would do whatever was aesthetically pleasing. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that it might be worthwhile to have certain existing trees marked for the cul-de-sac before the road was graded for construction.
The Chairman asked how the Highway Department and the lot owners would know where the easement lines were on the lots. Rick Martin replied that it would be in the deeds. The Chairman asked if the applicant had received a copy of the Highway Department’s notes. Rick Martin replied that he had and noted that the last two items on theses notes were no longer applicable as they dealt with the original offsite improvements that had been proposed with an earlier plan design. James Nordstrom agreed. Rick Martin clarified that instead he proposed to pay his proportionate share towards future improvements to Beard Road deemed necessary by the Town. Roch Larochelle noted that the Road Committee had questioned the proposed 8% grade off the entrance to the
subdivision and would have preferred 6% but added that it met the regulations with the inclusion of a 1% platform. He suggested that a sag location at the bottom of the hill could cause icing issues and suggested snow curve catch basins that would be useful during snow plowing season.
Rick Martin asked if in addition to the lot line revisions discussed if there were any other issues he should be addressing. Douglas Hill questioned a driveway entering off Beard Road for an alternate lot. The Coordinator clarified that the driveway to Lot #5/50-6 began on Lot #5/50-7 and there was no driveway shown on Lot #5/50-7 which raised the question as to why Lot #5/50-6 did not have its own driveway. She added that the offsite road improvement calculations confirmed by the Road Agent differed from the Town Engineer’s figures and suggested that the Road Committee weigh in on the matter. Rick Martin stated that the stormwater management plans were in tonight’s plan set and included details of the driveways.
Cyndie Wilson stated that the Conservation Commission had voted unanimously to accept the gift of the conservation easement land from the applicant and that an easement drafted by the Piscataquog Watershed Association (PWA) was in the process of being reviewed by that entity’s attorney so that it could be reviewed by the Board at their July 25, 2006, meeting. She noted that the PWA preferred that lot lines be marked between the conservation area and the lots which could be discussed at a subsequent meeting. Rick Kohler replied that this was understood. Rick Martin agreed and was willing to allow such marking at the Conservation Commission’s or PWA's expense.
Roch Larochelle wished to return to the subject of the offsite road improvement
calculations. The Coordinator explained that the offsite road improvement calculations
confirmed by the Road Agent as $65/foot and $542K total improvement cost differed from the Town Engineer’s figure of $100/foot along with Brian Dorwart, Road Committee’s more recent estimate of $800K total improvement cost. Roch Larochelle noted that Brian Dorwart’s figures included engineering, surveying and construction costs. Rick Martin stated that costs to upgrade an existing road versus constructing a new road would have different costs. Roch Larochelle noted that the plans stated that Beard Road would be paved from the subdivision’s entrance to NH Route 77. Douglas Hill clarified that this agreement was no long in the plans. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, clarified that the applicant’s current proposal was strictly a fair share contribution and that the paving clause was no long
applicable.
Rick Kohler wished to address the Conservation Commission’s previous concerns regarding the wetland delineations on site and noted that he and Bob Todd, LLS, had revisited this item by making modifications to the jurisdictional boundaries and soil runoffs.
Pat Panciocco, Esq., requested that an additional meeting be scheduled after July 11, 2006, because the applicant had obligations to the other landowner with whom he was under agreement to purchase their property.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of Donald E. Garretson and
Gary L. & Joanne B. Luneau, Major Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustments, 15 Lots, Location: Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/50, 5/52, 5/52-1 and 5/53, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, to July 11, 2006, at 8:00 p.m. and July 25, 2006, at 8:00 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mike Ryan, Esq., asked what would be the topic for discussion at the meeting of July 11, 2006. The Chairman replied that lot line adjustments and continuing discussions on the proposed subdivision were likely. Mike Ryan, Esq., asked if the application was slated for final approval at that meeting. The Chairman replied that he was unsure. Mike Ryan, Esq., explained that he would be out of state on that date and requested that items for final approval be considered at the July 25, 2006, meeting as he wanted to assure that the concerned residents of Beard Road had representation present. The Chairman thought it likely that there would be several additional issues that needed discussion which would carry through to the July 25, 2006, meeting. Douglas Hill
added that the Town Engineer’s review comments on the subdivision were also not back to the Board as of yet. The Coordinator noted that the mutually agreed extension date for the Board’s action on the application would expire on June 30, 2006, which needed to be addressed. Pat Panciocco, Esq., suggested an extension date to August 31, 2006. This date was acceptable to the Board.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the Board’s deadline for action to August 31, 2006. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
EISENHAURE, DOROTHY & JESSICA
Adjourned from 5/23/06
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
EISENHAURE, DOROTHY & JESSICA, cont.
Major Subdivision/4 Lots
Location: McCollum & Meadow Roads & unnamed class VI highway
Tax Map/Lot #14/98
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Mike Carter of Robert Todd Land Use Services and the applicants Dorothy and Jessica Eisenhaure. No abutters were present. An interested party was Roch Larochelle, Road Committee.
Mike Carter stated that since the last meeting with the Board a site walk had been held. He wished to review three items on the plan, the first being James Nordstrom's previous suggestion that a plan with 2’ contours versus 5’ be supplied, not for recording. James Nordstrom clarified that this would eliminate the need for a waiver request. Mike Carter stated that the second item involved evaluation of the slope of McCollum Road in the area of the proposed driveway entrances which was determined to be between 10.1% and 10.4%. James Nordstrom clarified that the proposed driveway entrances entered off McCollum Road at points where its grade exceeded 8%. The Coordinator noted that the 8% grade requirement applied to new subdivision roads and that in
this case the grade could be considered relative to traffic counts if the Board deemed it necessary. Roch Larochelle asked the sight distance from the proposed driveway locations. Mike Carter replied that sight distance from all proposed driveway locations exceeded 200’ in each direction and that these locations were staked as you moved northwesterly down McCollum Road and by pink flagging as you approached the crest to indicate the 200 foot sight lines. Douglas Hill asked if the existing driveway had any sight distance issues. Mike Carter replied that the sight distance was fairly marginal. Douglas Hill asked how long the existing driveway had been there and if it was paved. Dorothy Eisenhaure replied that the driveway was six years old and was not paved.
The Coordinator wished to note that an individual stormwater management plan had been submitted and wondered why a waiver was being requested. Mike Carter replied that the confusion was a matter of semantics and interpretation on the part of his office but that once he had reviewed the work done by Earl Sandford’s office it was determined that this requirement had been adequately covered. James Nordstrom asked Mike Carter if he wished to withdraw that waiver request. The Chairman clarified that although Mike Carter felt that the information provided was essentially the same as what a stormwater management plan offered it may not meet the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations because it was titled differently. Mike Carter agreed and added that he still
wished to submit that waiver.
Douglas Hill wondered if a traffic count on McCollum Road should be conducted. James Nordstrom asked how many residential properties were beyond the site on McCollum Road. Dorothy Eisenhaure replied that there were 3-5 properties beyond their site to a dead end.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waivers requested in a letter from Bob Todd, LLS, dated 4/17/06, for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies, Watershed Drainage Area Computations and 3 copies of the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of Dorothy and Jessica Eisenhaure, Major Subdivision, 4 Lots, Location: McCollum and Meadow Roads and Unnamed Class VI highway, Tax Map/Lot #14/98, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mike Carter asked if the Board could clarify their preference regarding the proposed shared driveway for two of the lots which was discussed at the prior meeting. The Chairman replied that he was not against common curb cuts with a split where the common portion straddled the lot lines for at least 50’. Mike Carter replied that he would make this revision to the plan. Douglas Hill noted that Mike Carter should clarify that the conservation easement proposed at an existing stonewall boundary accommodated the revision. Mike Carter replied that he did not think this would present an issue. The Chairman asked if the conservation easement would belong to the lot owners and be written into their deeds. Jessica Eisenhaure replied that it would be.
Cyndie Wilson stated that this was an important item as the easement would connect the existing hunting sanctuary across Meadow Road with property owned by the Mohans? James Nordstrom clarified that the applicant would not be showing the easements on the plan. Mike Carter noted that the mylar would show the driveway revisions as described and Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, would update his drawings but that Bob Todd, LLS, had suggested that for taxation purposes the value of the lots without the conservation easement should be calculated. He noted that the subdivision did not hinge upon the easement being granted and so it should not be a problem. Cyndie Wilson noted that if land was owned under an easement it was usually maintained by someone else. The Chairman stated that the easement should be confirmed as part of the subdivision but then noted that even so, the acreage on the site would not change. James Nordstrom clarified that the Board
would be considering approval of a 4 lot subdivision with no conservation easement in place. Dorothy Eisenhaure replied that she would, in good faith, have this completed before she sold the property. The Chairman asked what assurance the Board would have that this would be done. Dorothy Eisenhaure replied that she gave her word. Cynthia Wilson was confident that the easements would not go through until later on because of IRS procedure but the discussion was in the minutes regardless. Dorothy Eisenhaure summarized that although there was no deduction offered a Federal tax credit was given for putting land into conservation easement and her main purpose in doing so was because she cared about the land and the Town. The Chairman asked when the mylars would be ready. Mike Carter replied that they would be prepared in the next few days.
The Chairman noted that security was needed for the ISWMP for certain of the lots totaling $23,941.50. He asked how this security would be submitted. Jessica Eisenhaure indicated it would be either cash or check.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Subdivision Plan of Dorothy C. & Jessica
Eisenhaure, Major Subdivision, 4 Lots, Tax Map #14/98, McCollum & Meadow Roads & unnamed class VI highway, 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 a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD.
3. Submission of security for the ISWMPs in the amount of $7,755 for Lot #14/98-3, $7,172 for Lot #14/98-1, and $9,014.50 for Lot #14/98-2 for a total of $23,941.50 in the form of cash or check.
4. Upon completion of the conditions precedent, the final plans and mylar shall be signed by the Board and forwarded for recording at the HCRD.
5. Payment of any outstanding fees related to the subdivision application, including the
cost of recording documents at the HCRD.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be August 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 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.
At 9:10 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.
SHB PROPERTIES, LLC
Adjourned from 5/23/06
Work Session/Design Review
Major Subdivision/7 Lots
Location: Pulpit and Bedford Roads
Tax Map/Lot #12/65
Residential-One “R-1” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Jim Edwards, LLS, of Meridien Land Services and Jeff Hudson of SHB Properties, LLC. Abutters and interested parties present were Connie and Robert Brown, Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, and Mica Stark.
Jim Edwards, LLS, stated that minor revisions had been made to the plan since the last meeting and that the applicant was still awaiting certain permits. He noted that he had incorporated the leg out off the proposed cul-de-sac as a proposed driveway access to Lot #12/65-8 onto the plan. Jim Edwards, LLS, added that no changes had been made to the other lots or the proposed road profile. He further added that he had incorporated the third wetland crossing back onto the plan as this was necessary to make Lot #12/65-8 conforming. In regard to sight distance, Jim Edwards, LLS, explained that he had viewed the topography along Bedford Road at the proposed road entrance and that sight distance down Bedford Road was more than adequate. He added that traffic counts
performed showed average daily trips of 2,700 cars per day with future projections of 3,100 and that the peak hours were 6:15 a.m. to 7:15 a.m. with 319 cars per hour and 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. with 344 cars per hour which meant that although the counts were high, they were within reasonable rates for a major connector road. He noted that the peak pm hour was usually around 5:30 p.m. so this was somewhat unusual. Jim Edwards, LLS, stated that at the last meeting he had requested waivers for the Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies, and with no other changes they would like to proceed forward. He asked if the plans could be forwarded to the Town Engineer in anticipation of receiving State permits.
The Chairman asked Jim Edwards, LLS, to review the issues of Lot #12/65-8. Jim Edwards, LLS, explained that this lot fronted on Bedford Road but would need a large wetland crossing in order for a driveway to get to the building site in back of the lot, therefore, they had discussed at the last meeting the possibility of accessing the lot by a 30’ stand-alone strip of land off the proposed cul-de-sac. The Chairman asked if this lot had 50’ of frontage if it could be revised to a backlot. The Coordinator noted that backlots were not allowed in the “R-1” District. The Chairman asked if the house for the lot could be constructed at the front of the property. Jim Edwards, LLS, replied that this could not be done in accordance with the town's
requirements. The Chairman noted that this lot presented unusual circumstances because while access through frontage could be proven it required a wetland crossing that the State may not agree to because of the possibility of using the alternative access strip off the proposed cul-de-sac, however, in order to have a conforming lot the applicant needed the State’s OK on such a crossing. The Coordinator added that 30’ could not be considered frontage, therefore, the applicant still needed legal provable frontage and that it would be up to the Board to interpret the Zoning Ordinance for a driveway over the lot's frontage. The Chairman asked Cynthia Wilson, Conservation, Commission, her opinion on the matter. Cynthia Wilson replied that with the right design she thought the lot could be considered conforming but that it seemed excessive that the applicant may need to spend money on a wetland crossing design that would never be used. Douglas
Hill asked if, with the third crossing, the total impact to the site was still considered minimal. Jim Edwards, LLS, replied that it was. Douglas Hill asked for a detail of the larger wetland crossing. Jim Edwards, LLS, replied that it was located on page 10 of the plan set and showed 30’ X 40’ of impact with significant flows. Douglas Hill noted that a 15” culvert was proposed. Jim Edwards, LLS, replied that was proposed to address storm flow and that a box culvert was being considered. The Chairman stated that if the Board agreed that the driveway was buildable and allowable by a crossing per the State then it could be assumed a conforming lot. Cynthia Wilson noted that she had a letter from Christine Bowman of NHDES that made inquiries into whether Lot #12/65-8’s access could be off Campbell Pond Road to avoid constructing the third crossing. Jim Edwards, LLS, replied that Campbell Pond Road would not
provide an adequate access. Cynthia Wilson agreed. James Nordstrom stated that, in his opinion, he did not think that the State would approve the third crossing because of the possibility to have access off Pulpit Road. The Coordinator noted that the alternative was a variance through the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the applicants had been disinclined to go that route. The Chairman disagreed as he felt that frontage access was possible per the intent of Zoning. James Nordstrom noted that the intent of the 2004 Zoning change did not take this scenario into account. The Chairman agreed as this application dealt with an “R-1” versus an “R-A” District. Jim Edwards, LLS, wondered if copies of Board minutes supplied to NHDES could better explain this scenario to them for a favorable outcome. James Nordstrom suggested that the Conservation Commission could forward a favorable recommendation to the Wetlands Bureau
to approve the third crossing. Cynthia Wilson replied that the Conservation Commission would not be in favor of such a recommendation and would instead recommend access off the cul-de-sac with a letter of explanation from the Board as to why this was the best alternative. Jeff Hudson suggested that he approach the Conservation Commission and ask for a recommendation in writing that they approve of the crossing with the stipulation that it would never be used, then NHDES could review that recommendation and approve the crossing for administrative reasons by way of a deed restriction. The Chairman thought this approach might work if the intent was clarified. He suggested that a vote be taken by the Board on the matter.
Douglas Hill MOVED that the Board was willing to accept the proposed driveway to Lot #12/65-8 as buildable on a viable lot with access through its own 30’ tail of land. James Nordstrom seconded the motion.
Don Duhaime did not think the Board had the right to determine what NHDES’s decision on the proposed crossing would be. The Chairman noted that this property was not gaining access off another lot’s property which was the intent of the 2004 Zoning amendment. The Coordinator noted that the Zoning amendment had deliberately not dealt with specific scenarios because the Board wanted to have discretion for broader situations such as the applicant’s. She added that the way Zoning had been interpreted in the past was that NHDES approval was required along with Conditional Use Permits to prove a lot viable. The Chairman individually polled the Board members - James Nordstrom - NAY, Don Duhaime - NAY, Christine Quirk - NAY, Douglas Hill - NAY, Peter Hogan -
AYE. The motion FAILED.
The Chairman suggested that the applicant approach the Conservation Commission and then explain the Zoning scenario to NHDES.
Abutter Bob Brown stated that on May 30, 2006, he had presented to the Selectmen his preference to abandon Pulpit Road and have his existing driveway relocated off Bedford Road. He asked if the Selectmen approved this request if the Board would approve their Driveway Permit. He added that in crossing Pulpit Road there was a small island of land whose ownership was not clarified. Christine Quirk noted that the Selectmen were also unsure, therefore, would likely give him the land. James Nordstrom stated that the access off Bedford Road seemed possible and he did not think there would be an issue with the Driveway Permit. The Chairman agreed that once the details were worked out with the Selectmen, the Planning Board would be able to issue a Driveway Permit.
Jeff Hudson noted that they would provide access to the proposed upgraded portion of Pulpit Road by way of an easement for Lot #12/65-2 or access
could be deeded across. He noted that the Brown’s intent to create a new driveway access off Bedford Road could be easily accomplished as the intent was to abandon Pulpit Road at the next Town Meeting. The Chairman agreed that the Brown’s Driveway Permit would not be an issue.
Jeff Hudson stated that instead of placing a gate across the Class VI portion of Pulpit Road he preferred to place boulders if the main intent was to limit access of ATV’s, etc., as many times these gates were unmaintained and fell into disrepair much like a nearby gate in the Town of Bedford, NH, past Esther Drive. He also reiterated his request that the plans be sent to the Town Engineer even though the application was not yet considered complete because of pending State permits. Douglas Hill asked what permits were pending. Jeff Hudson replied that the Wetlands Permit and State Subdivision Approval were pending and past their deadline. The Chairman noted that the Board was not in favor of sending plans to the Town Engineer until the application was accepted
as complete. James Nordstrom agreed and added that this had been attempted in the past for some applications and had proven a bad decision on the part of the Board. The Chairman felt that in lieu of the pending permit and remaining details to be addressed two more meetings would be required until the final application could be approved.
James Nordstrom MOVED to recommend the application of SHB Properties, LLC, Major Subdivision, 7 Lots, Location: Pulpit and Bedford Roads, Tax Map/Lot #12/65, Residential-One “R-1” District, for final submission. It should be pointed out to the applicant that the "Conditional approval of a 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.) Don Duhaime
seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
PLANTIER, DAVID A. & ALEXIS B.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/4 Lots
Location: Bedford & Campbell Pond Roads
Tax Map/Lot #12/82 & 12/71
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, of Sandford Survey and Engineering and the applicant David Plantier. Abutters and interested parties present were Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, Kelly Coco, Chris Golomb, Bob Ault, Mica Stark, Jeff LaRoche, and Dave and Cheryl Paquette.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the proposal involved two existing lots being consolidated and resubdivided into four lots which were located in the area between Chestnut Hill and Christy Roads where Bedford Road curved. He noted the existing house lot and long driveway and pointed out proposed locations for an additional front lot and two backlots. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that all lots would meet the requirements of 1.5 acres contiguous flat land and that the applicant had received his Dredge and Fill Permit along with State Subdivision Approval for the one lot that would be less than five acres. The Chairman asked for clarification of Lot #12/71-3’s location. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it was behind Lot #12/76 which was partly behind Lot
#12/74. He noted that Lot #12/76 was a pre-existing non-conforming front lot with less than the current required frontage. The Chairman asked what the frontage was for Lot #12/76. The Coordinator replied that it was 90’ and that she had researched this lot back to 1963 which predated Zoning. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that there was no existing regulation that stated front lots could not be stacked. He added that a Conditional Use Permit would be necessary which required additional information that was provided on sheet #3 of the plan set and showed profiles and upsized culverts based on wetlands. The Chairman asked about the proposed driveway for Lot #12/71-2. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that this would be a frontage driveway.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that he had made some minor revisions to the plan that involved corrections to abutter names, deed references, calculations for the 1.5 acre contiguous flatland requirement and suitable building envelope for Lot #12/71-4. He added that the applicant had agreed to install fire sprinkler systems in the houses on the lots in lieu of a cistern requirement that was on the prior subdivision plans. Cynthia Wilson, Conservation Commission, asked about the culverts proposed on the site. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that they were oval shaped 28” X 20” arch culverts, and up-sized to better accommodate the surrounding wetland habitat. Cynthia Wilson asked if the culverts were open bottomed. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that
they were not but that the bottom was flat to allow for some accumulation of siltation, therefore, in theory they would have the same function as the open bottom version. Dave Plantier noted that NHDES had recommended the flat bottom culvert for the site.
Abutter Kelly Coco asked if the driveway to the site was one access strip. Interested party Chris Golomb stated that he shared Kelly Coco’s concern noting that there was an additional access to the site from St. Jude Road. Earl Sandford, PE, LLS, did not think that the St. Jude Road access point would ever be considered as a large wetland crossing would be needed there. Chris Golomb was still concerned that if the property was ever sold the new owner might still have interest in the access off St. Jude Road if, for example, they wished to construct a barn or storage structure at the rear of the site. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, thought this scenario was unlikely as a new owner would need another Dredge and Fill Permit to do so and the State would rather see
crossings avoided where possible. Chris Golomb asked if there was a way that the Board could mandate access to the site off Bedford Road only. Douglas Hill replied that a deed restriction could be suggested. Dave Plantier noted that he wanted to protect the land onsite as much as possible and even thought he thought it unlikely that a potential buyer would be interested in the secondary access point being discussed he did not want to limit his options by placing a deeded access restriction on the property. Cynthia Wilson noted that NHDES frowned on additional wetland crossing requests once a subdivision was approved. She added that an alternative possibility might be a deed restriction to not further subdivide or use the secondary access as a driveway and even if it was used it would only be for a single family residence. The Chairman agreed that it would be difficult to obtain another wetland crossing from NHDES. Chris Golomb noted that if
the property was ever sold there were no guarantees regarding the access. The Chairman reiterated that it was an unlikely scenario given the access provided off Bedford Road.
Abutter Mica Stark stated that he resided on Lot #12/74 and asked if the boundaries to Lot #12/76 were squared. Dave Plantier replied that they were. Mica Stark then inquired about the building envelope for Lot #12/71-2. The Chairman clarified that the square on the plan was for Zoning purposes to show the frontage and was not a building envelope. Mica Stark then asked what the buffer line requirements were to the property boundary lines. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the setbacks were 20’ from the side boundary lines and 50’ from the frontage. Douglas Hill asked if there were any critical areas on the site. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied there were not. Mica Stark asked if the homes on the lots would be single family or
duplex. Dave Plantier replied that he proposed single family, however, if the property was ever sold then they could potentially be duplexed. Chris Golomb agreed. Abutter, Jeff LaRoche stated that he shared the views expressed by Chris Golomb this evening. Dave Paquette agreed also and asked if there could be any further subdivision of the lots in the future. The Chairman replied that this was not possible as there was only 50’ of frontage on Lot #12/71. Chris Golomb asked if that 50’ could be a future road. The Chairman replied that it could not.
Abutter Cheryl Paquette asked if the proposed driveway could impact wetlands and her own basement and septic system during construction. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it was part of the planning process to not have such impacts occur. The Chairman noted that if they did then the State could be contacted with a wetlands violation. Cheryl Paquette noted that she raised her question in light of the recent rain events experienced in the Town. The Chairman stated that the State did a good job in assuring that wetlands were well protected. Cynthia Wilson asked what the applicant’s plans were for the site during construction. Dave Plantier replied that he was reluctant to cut any trees originally and that he wanted to retain the older growth and
pines on the land to maintain the health of the forest. He noted that this was why he wanted small construction footprints although it may require cutting some smaller saplings. Cynthia Wilson asked Dave Plantier if he was willing to keep the forestry located near the wetlands on site. Dave Plantier replied that the forest was not as healthy on the eastern side of the wetlands, therefore, he would try to establish anchors of growth and limit cutting on the eastern and south western sides of the wetlands to increase the health factors.
The Coordinator noted that they were awaiting verification from the Fire Wards regarding the language for the proposed fire sprinklers and to determine that the sprinkler language would fulfill the previous cistern requirement for the subdivision. The Chairman asked if the fire sprinklers proposed were noted on the plan. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, made the note at that time.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant the waivers requested in a letter by Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, dated June 6, 2006, for the requirement of the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of David A. and Alexis B. Plantier, Major Subdivision, 4 Lots, Location: Bedford and Campbell Pond Roads, Tax Map/Lot #12/82 & 12/71, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
A site walk was scheduled for July 18, 2006, at 6:30 p.m.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of David A. and Alexis B. Plantier, Major Subdivision, 4 Lots, Location: Bedford and Campbell Pond Roads, Tax Map/Lot #12/82 & 12/71, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to July 25, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2006
1. Driveway Permit Application for Thibeault Corporation, Wilson Hill & Byam Roads, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-23, for the Board’s action. (Drive by prior to meeting)
The Coordinator wished to noted that when the original subdivision that included the above noted lot was approved in 1997, certain areas were restricted by the applicant for driveway construction and it now appeared that this driveway was proposed in such an area. The Board determined that a letter explaining this issue should be sent to the applicant for further clarification
2. Approval of minutes of May 23, 2006, distributed at the June 13, 2006, meeting, with or without changes. (No Copies)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of May 23, 2006, as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Endorsement of a Condex Plan for Rob Starace, Salisbury Crossing, Hopkins and Salisbury Roads, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-1, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman stated that because of multiple signature sheets this item along with item #4 could be addressed at the end of the meeting.
4. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Dana Moody, Tax Map/Lot #8/122, Clark Hill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
5. Schedule a compliance site walk for Rick Martin, Right Way Builders, Condominium, 217 Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #5/52-1.
A compliance site walk was scheduled for July 18, 2006, at 7:15 p.m.
6a. A copy of a letter received June 13, 2006, from Bobby Patel, Chief Estimator, Thibeault Corporation, to New Boston Planning Board, Re: Request for bond reduction for Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, Hutchinson Lane, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
This item addressed with 6b.
6b. A copy of a faxed letter received June 14, 2006, from Rene LaBranche, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, Re: Hutchinson Road, Bond Reduction Recommendation, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
James Nordstrom noted that Thibeault Corporation had requested that their bond be reduced to approximately $51K while Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., had recommended a reduction to approximately $100K. The Chairman felt that the Board should go by the Town Engineer’s recommendation as was the standard procedure.
James Nordstrom MOVED to reduce the bond for Hutchinson Lane, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5, to $100,989.08 per the letter received June 14, 2006, from Rene LaBranche, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
7. A copy of a faxed letter received June 14, 2006, from Rene LaBranche, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, Re: Morin Subdivision-Daylily & Greenfield Road, Bond Reduction Recommendation, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Douglas Hill MOVED to reduce the bond for Daylily Lane to $51,222.88 and for Greenfield Road to $9,917.33, for Reggie Houle Builders, Tax Map/Lot #7/74, per letter received June 14, 2006, from Rene LaBranche, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
8. A copy of a faxed letter received June 21, 2006, from Cyndie Wilson, New Boston Conservation Commission, to Nicola Strong, Planning Department, Re: wetlands crossing/SHB Properties, Inc., was distributed for the Board’s information.
9. A copy of a letter received June 21, 2006, from Rene LaBranche, Stantec Consulting Services., Inc., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, Re: Hutchinson Lane Road- remaining work list, was distributed for the Board’s information.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
10. A copy of a memorandum received June 20, 2006, from John Bunting, to Planning Board Members, Re: New road names, was distributed for the Board’s information.
11. A copy of the June 20, 2006, ZBA meeting minutes, were distributed for the Board’s information.
It was noted that the variance request for the 200’ square that did not fit on the plans for a proposed lot on Twin Bridge Road was denied.
12. The minutes of June 13, 2006, were distributed for approval at the meeting of July 11, 2006, with or without changes.
13. The Chairman endorsed of a Site Review Agreement for Jonathan and Jessica Willard, Private School, Tax Map/Lot #18/20, 20 River Road, New Boston.
14. A copy of a letter dated June 23, 2006, from Morgan Hollis, Esq., Gottesman & Hollis, PA, re: deadline extension request for Waldorf Estates, Phase III, Foxberry Drive, Tax Map/Lot #8/84, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator explained that the applicant would like an extension to June 30, 2007, for their conditions subsequent as work left to be done included a final paving coat, various driveways, As-Built submittal, Certificate of Bounds set, and ongoing sprinkler system installations as homes were built on the lots involved. The Chairman wondered if the bond amount would become obsolete with such an extension. The Coordinator replied that it would still cover final paving costs.
James Nordstrom MOVED to grant an extension of the conditions subsequent for Waldorf Estates, Phase III, Foxberry Drive, Tax Map/Lot #8/84 to June 30, 2007. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
15. A copy of a draft request for Proposals for consulting engineering services, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Board deemed it appropriate for an ad to be placed in local papers after the July 4th, 2006, holiday through August 1, 2006.
16. A copy of a letter dated June 19, 2006, from the Board of Selectmen to Matthew & Colleen Reed, re: Sight Line Improvement at the Wilson Hill/Bedford Road intersection, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Christine Quirk explained that the banking at this intersection was slated to be moved back to the location of an existing telephone pole and that the Highway Department would oversee the work which was to be performed by Thibeault Corporation at such time as their major subdivision application was submitted for land on Byam and Wilson Hill Roads.
17. A copy of Visions, the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission Newsletter, Volume 30, No. 4, June, 2006, was distributed for the Board’s information.
18. The Coordinator stated that the applicant of the approved Indian Falls Subdivision had requested an extension to their conditions subsequent (in regards to paving) to July 31, 2006.
Christine Quirk MOVED to grant an extension of the conditions subsequent to August 31, 2006. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Don Duhaime pointed out that there was some remedial work to be done to Indian Falls Road before final paving should take place.
19. The Coordinator stated that she was recently approached by an individual who stated that a wetland delineation performed on land they had been interested in 2 years ago differed substantially from a wetland delineation submitted by the current owner as part of a subdivision application. She noted that her response was that the stamped certified plans of a professional who performed the delineation would be what was deemed acceptable and asked the Board if they agreed. James Nordstrom added that such conflicts were usually resolved through a concurrence of the two professionals who performed the delineations. The Coordinator noted that the previous land owner never got to the point of submitting a formal plan. James Nordstrom stated that in that case the answer the Coordinator had
provided was acceptable. The Board agreed.
The Chairman and James Nordstrom (in the Secretary’s absence) endorsed the plans noted earlier in item #’s 3, 4 and 13.
At 11:25 p.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien, Minutes Approved:
Recording Clerk
| |
