Minutes of the Planning Board
February 13, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, James Nordstrom, Bob Furey, Don Duhaime; ex-officio David Woodbury and alternates Douglas Hill and Stu Lewin. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience, for all or part of the meeting were John Bunting, Mike Dahlberg, LLS, Jay Marden, David Clukay, Heidi Akerman, Cyndie Wilson, Willard Dodge, Brandy Mitroff, Bob Todd, LLS, Ray Shea, Emile Bussiere, Jr., Rob Starace, Tim Crowell, Ken Lombard, Kim DiPietro and Steve Caggiano.
NEW ERA CF TRUST
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/3 Lots
Location: Beard and Greg Mill Roads
Tax Map/Lot #6/12
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Mike Dahlberg, LLS and applicant Jay Marden. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the applicants proposed to subdivide two lots from Tax Map/Lot #6/12: one for their daughter to build a house on and one to sell. He noted that the site was bounded by Gregg Mill Road with Riverdale Road to the east, Lull Road to the north and Beard Road toward NH Route 77. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, added that the proposed lots began on the gravel portion of Beard Road. He noted that they proposed the use of an existing woods road to access proposed Lot #6/12-12 and further noted that the lots exceeded the Town’s frontage requirements. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that Lot #6/12-11 had received State Subdivision Approval and was less than 5 acres in size. He noted that the Coordinator’s checklist comments of the plan had been addressed and a waiver request
for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies had been submitted. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, further noted that the applicant had requested a waiver to the fire sprinkler requirement for the homes on the proposed lots but that he was unsure what the Board’s position would be on this given that there was a cistern located near the site, however, it exceeded 2,200 lineal feet in distance. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, added that if the waiver to the sprinkler requirement was not possible then the applicant would request a waiver to the timing of the submittal of draft documents to be included in the deed language for the homes.
Mike Dahlberg stated that there was no wetland impact proposed although there was one small manmade area at the rear of the property that had been dug out many years prior. The Chairman asked Mike Dahlberg, LLS, if he had delineated the wetlands. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that he had per the relevant statutes. He noted that the Coordinator had asked why a 25’ strip of land had remained on Lot #6/12-11 and he explained that this was left to give direct access to the abutting State land for foot traffic so that it would not be necessary to cross over privately owned properties. He noted that this strip did not increase the building area due to the required setbacks. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, further noted that he had reviewed the definition of Critical Areas and felt there were none on the
site. The Chairman asked about the proposed
driveways. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that there was an existing driveway access to proposed Lot #6/12-12 and a Driveway Permit Application had been submitted for Lot #6/12-11, however, no design had been done yet as this was the lot that would be put up for sale.
The Chairman asked Mike Dahlberg, LLS, what his justification was for the waiver requested on the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that construction was proposed on flat areas of the site, therefore, he did not feel that the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan was necessary and also there were no wetland or run-off areas nearby. The Chairman asked for clarification of the waivers requested on the requirements for Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that there was minimal impact proposed to the site and that the leach field for Lot #6/12-12 would be very compact (shown at test pit #3 on the plan). He added that construction was not proposed in Steep Slope areas and that the house locations were planned on the
crest of the hill on site so as not to interfere with wildlife corridors. Regarding the Traffic Study requirement Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that he did not think that the two proposed lots would cause impacts with the standard 2 or 3 car trips per day from each lot.
Dave Woodbury noted that the plans included on note that fire sprinklers would be installed in the homes, however, Mike Dahlberg, LLS, had stated that he did not think they were necessary due to a nearby cistern and had submitted a waiver request. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, explained that when the plans were submitted the standard sprinkler note was included and that the applicant had reviewed the plans stating that they did not want sprinklers but this note needed to be shown unless a waiver was granted. He added that the Coordinator had phoned him the previous Friday before tonight’s meeting and informed him that written waiver requests had not been submitted, therefore, these were prepared for submittal at tonight’s meeting. He reiterated that if the waiver request was not granted by the Board
he would request a waiver to the submittal timing of the draft documents to the deeds. Dave Woodbury asked how far beyond the 2,200 lineal feet (maximum distance to allow fire water supply coverage) the existing cistern was located. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that he was unsure. The Chairman stated that he would not be comfortable granting a waiver to the fire sprinkler requirement for this plan. Bob Furey agreed. He asked what the acreage of the remaining portion of the site would be given the proposed subdivision. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that it would be just less than 21 acres. James Nordstrom stated that fire fighting water supply was necessary for the lots and the distance of the existing cistern would play into his opinion on granting the waiver. Jay Marden replied that the existing cistern was over 4,000’ away. Given this information the Board was not comfortable in granting a waiver to the fire sprinkler
requirement. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that he would like to amend the waiver request to replace the sprinkler requirement with the submission of the draft documents to the deeds. The Chairman clarified that Mike Dahlberg, LLS’s request was to delay the submission of the draft documents for the sprinkler systems until the next meeting as this submission would be necessary for a completed application. Mike Dahlberg stated that was the case.
Dave Woodbury noted that the Police Chief had commented on the plan stating that he thought future driveways proposed on the remaining acreage might be difficult to locate except at the south-east corner near Riverdale Road. Don Duhaime wondered if sight distance would be a factor. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, agreed stating that the remaining acreage was located on an inside curve along Riverdale Road and had Steep Slopes. The Chairman asked how flat the land was on proposed Lot #6/12-12. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that this lot had some areas of 16-17% Slopes. Bob Furey noted that Lot #6/12-11 seemed to have areas of Steep Slopes greater than 15-25%. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, explained that the green shaded areas on the plan represented Steep Slopes, the cross hatched areas were ledge and the red
cross hatched areas were Slopes greater than 25%. He noted that construction was not planned near these areas but rather at the lower end of the lot. Bob Furey stated that he was not sure that the Board should waive the requirement for the submission of a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The Chairman asked Mike Dahlberg, LLS, if there were any notations on the plan that stated construction would not take place on steep areas of the site. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that there was not but that such a note could be added. Douglas Hill noted that even if such construction did occur it would be considered to be in a critical area that would require engineered plans to prove its feasibility. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, noted that there were areas that barely exceeded 15% slopes, therefore, a leach field could easily be constructed. He added that his company did enhanced septic designs with silt fencing and other added measures when such
situations presented themselves and the same could be done for this plan if that was warranted. The Chairman stated that a plan note should be added stating that appropriate measures would be taken if construction occurred in critical areas. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, stated that the location planned for the houses on the two proposed lots were far enough off the road at 400’ to 500’, therefore, you would not see them from the road except for their roof line possibly in the winter season. He added that he was confident that he could keep the location of the proposed septic systems away from 15% slopes.
The Chairman asked why the driveways had not yet been designed for the lots. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that he had not been hired to do the designs yet. The Chairman asked Mike Dahlberg, LLS, if he thought the driveways could be designed to enter at less than a 10% grade. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that there was an 8% slope that would traverse between the two 10’ contours along the proposed driveways followed by a 6% slope, therefore, there should not be any design conflicts. Douglas Hill asked if the houses could be constructed towards the front of the lots to avoid crossing the ledge areas. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that that might work also. Douglas Hill asked if a ledge outcropping existed across the lots. Mike Dahlberg, LLS, replied that it did and might require
blasting.
James Nordstrom stated that while he had no issue with waiving the Traffic Study he thought there was potential for environmental impacts which a site walk might clarify. The Chairman noted that the Board’s decision on waiving the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan played into this also. The Board determined that they had no issue with the waivers requested for the Traffic and Fiscal Studies but because the remaining waiver requested for the Environment Impact Study could not be considered until after the site walk the application could not be accepted as complete this evening. A site walk was scheduled for March 17, 2007, at 8:30 a.m.
James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn the application of New ERA CF Trust, Major Subdivision, 3 Lots, Location: Beard and Gregg Mill Roads, Tax Map/Lot #6/12,
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to March 27, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
CLUKAY, DAVID D. & AKERMAN, HEIDI L. Adjourned from 1/09/07
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
NRSPR/Horse Boarding and Riding Stable
Location: Saunders Hill & Bunker Hill Roads
Tax Map/Lot #1/12
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants David Clukay and Heidi Akerman. Abutter Steve Caggiano was present.
The Chairman recalled that an outstanding issue raised at the last meeting had been the proposed manure storage facility for the plan. Heidi Akerman replied that they planned to construct the same type of structure for manure storage as was existing at the former dairy barn on site. She explained that it would be 37’ long and 17’ wide and have a solid concrete floor with concrete rising 4’ on all sides followed by wooden walls and an asphalt roof. The Chairman asked how the structure would be loaded and if it would be top loaded. Heidi Akerman replied that it would be top loaded from the inside of the barn. Bob Furey asked from what level the structure would be loaded. Heidi Akerman replied that the pit would be lower than the first
floor of the barn and would resemble a walk-out facility. Dave Woodbury asked what the next step was in the process after the manure was placed in the storage facility. Heidi Akerman explained that the manure would compost for a period of time and would then be spread in their pastures. Dave Woodbury asked if there would be wood shavings in the manure. Heidi Akerman replied that there would be but it composted down. The Chairman clarified that the point Dave Woodbury was alluding to was that horse manure composted much slower than cow manure. Heidi Akerman stated that they emptied their current manure storage structure one or two times per year to spread in their fields. The Chairman noted that if they were operating at the capacity noted on their plan they would be emptying their facility more often. Heidi Akerman stated that they also gave manure away to neighbors for the same purpose and were considering selling it in the future. Douglas Hill asked if they chose not to
spread the manure if there were companies that would remove it for them. The Chairman replied that there were companies that provided dumpsters and would haul manure away for clients. Douglas Hill asked if there was a down side to storage and spreading of manure. The Chairman felt that in this case only the capacity might pose an issue where the facility could become so overloaded that it would need to be stockpiled outside and contaminate ground water. Douglas Hill explained that the Board was also considering any potential for future owners of the property to run into the same conflicts if the proposed facility was not adequate. The Chairman agreed. David Clukay stated that they would never stockpile their manure outside. The Chairman replied that this was assumed and was merely being stated for the record. Dave Woodbury noted that even with the Board’s approval of a plan without adequate manure storage NHDES would be the
authority to become involved with the property owners if groundwater contamination became an issue. The Chairman felt that the addition of the second proposed manure storage facility coupled with the existing one should be helpful. Bob Furey asked if the facility could handle several months of winter storage. The Chairman clarified that manure could be spread in the winter but the nitrogen benefits would be lost. Bob Furey asked if the applicants could afford to wait 5 months through the winter before spreading manure. Heidi Akerman replied that with two facilities this would not be an issue.
James Nordstrom asked if the 100 year flood plain had been delineated on the plan. Heidi Akerman read from note #7 of the plan: “A copy of the Currier Book, USGS Weare ( NH) Topo Map (updated 1995) is submitted with this site plan. The applicable section of Zone A on the FIRM is clearly bounded by the 620 foot contour line on the USGS Topo Map. The location of the proposed barn is on the uphill side of that contour line and therefore is in an area determined to be outside the 500 year floodplain. An onsite inspection would also alleviate any concern that the site is in danger of being flooded by Brook.”. James Nordstrom took this to mean that the barn site was above the 500 year flood plain and asked how the elevation had been
determined. Heidi Akerman replied that it was uphill from the 500 year flood plain at the 620’ mark. James Nordstrom stated that the surface elevation of the slab/footing for the proposed barn was needed to determine this. The Coordinator stated that the flood maps she copied for the applicants at the last meeting indicated that a portion of the proposed area for the barn was in Zone A which was a special flood hazard area for the 100 year flood plain and these elevations were yet to be determined, therefore, that information needed to be verified with the measurements of the footings for the proposed barn as the Building Department required this in accordance with the Flood Plain Development Ordinance. Douglas Hill asked if barns were included as structures for that Ordinance. The Coordinator replied that any structures/development were included. The Coordinator stated that the FIRM and topography maps were two different maps and
that the Building Inspector would require some kind of certification from someone that showed all the elevations before a Building Permit could be issued. The Chairman explained to the applicants that they needed to have a licensed surveyor determine this elevation number for the footings of the proposed barn. Douglas Hill added that this requirement would most likely be part of the applicant’s financing requirements anyway. Bob Furey stated that he though that securing a FIRM update would be an involved process. The Coordinator stated that there was a specific way to handle this for proposals such as these with an elevation study done by a surveyor and the update certified by FEMA. The Chairman asked Ray Shea who was in the audience if he was familiar with this type of update. Ray Shea replied that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, was more familiar with this and had done Letters Of Map Adjustments (LOMA’s) in the past which were somewhat
involved. The Coordinator thought that this type of update was common and not comparable to a LOMA which were more difficult. Ray Shea stated that the process was not difficult if the flood map provided elevations as only a certification would be needed, however, without elevations the process was more involved. He suggested that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, was better adept at explaining this. The Chairman stated
that certification of the proposed building location not being in a flood zone would be a requirement of the Building Inspector. Douglas Hill suggested that the applicants get in touch with the Building Inspector.
The Chairman stated that in order to hang a business sign on the property a permit would be required from the Building Inspector. He asked if Board members had any concerns with traffic impacts generated by the proposed business and they did not. The Chairman asked if any traffic flow indicators would be placed on the property. Heidi Akerman replied that parking spaces for patrons and employees would be delineated. The Chairman stated that this would need to be added to the plan. He asked how the spaces would be delineated. Heidi Akerman replied that the spaces would be delineated by railroad ties. Dave Woodbury noted that the proposed parking did not look close to scale but appeared to have 5 spaces. Heidi Akerman added that the spaces were
measured at 10’ wide and 15’ long. Dave Woodbury clarified that employee parking would be located elsewhere on the site. The Chairman noted that certain SUV’s were approximately 20’ in length. Heidi Akerman replied that she would extend the length of the parking spaces if needed.
The Chairman concluded that base elevations measured against the flood plain would determine the proposed barn’s placement in line with the existing stream on site and that would be achieved by flood mapping. He noted that the Building Inspector would not be able to issue a Building Permit in a flood zone. David Clukay replied that their property was not in a flood zone. The Chairman clarified that a surveyor’s certification would be required. Douglas Hill reiterated that this would also be required for insurance and financing aspects. James Nordstrom qualified that the Board could not act on the plan’s approval until they were assured that the proposed structure would not be located in a flood zone. Heidi Akerman asked if conditional
approval could be granted based on that. Douglas Hill thought this was possible as the Building Inspector could not supply a Building Permit until he received the same assurance. The Chairman added that the fact that the plan was not drawn to scale was helpful to the applicant as if the proposed building needed to be moved 10’, for example, due to flood mapping it would not change the plan. He clarified that the scale was not tight enough to the setback lines to make a difference, therefore, there should be no issue with the conditional approval. The Board was in agreement.
James Nordstrom MOVED to accept the application of David D. Clukay and Heidi L. Akerman, NRSPR, Horse Boarding and Riding Stable, Location: Saunders Hill and Bunker Hill Roads, Tax Map/Lot #1/12, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman explained to the applicants that they should not submit revised site plans to the Board until they are considered final site plans, i.e., if the barn placement needed to be moved more than 10’. The Chairman asked if signage was on the plan. Heidi Akerman replied that it was and noted it on the plan. The Chairman suggested that this should be confirmed and legible. He explained that any sign on the plan must be installed in order for compliance to be granted. Bob Furey asked if the five proposed parking spots were where the applicants wanted them to be. Heidi Akerman replied that they were. The Chairman suggested that if the applicants felt they needed something to aid traffic flow on the site for potential customer parking they
could also add this to the plan.
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the Non-Residential Site Plan for Heidi Akerman and David Clukay, to operate a boarding and riding stable from a proposed barn on a portion of Tax Map/Lot #1/12, subject to:
CONDITION(S) 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.
3. Submission of any outstanding fees for the application.
The deadline for complying with the condition(s) precedent shall be August 1, 2007, 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 under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval
CONDITION(S) SUBSEQUENT:
1. All of the site improvements are to be completed per the approved site plan;
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 and the opening of the business on the site;
3. Any outstanding fees related to the site plan application compliance shall be
submitted prior to the compliance hearing;
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 Permit to Operate or Certificate of Occupancy, or both.
The deadline for complying with the Conditions Subsequent shall be June 1, 2008, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing on same as described in item 4 above. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
BUSSIERE, JAQUELINE ET AL
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/13 Lots
Location: Indian Falls Road
Tax Map/Lot #12/88
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
&
MARK E. LEBLANC TRUST 2004
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/6 Lots
Location: Indian Falls Road
Tax map/Lot #12/89
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering who represented the applicants one of whom, Emile Bussiere, Jr., was present. Interested parties present were Brandy Mitroff, Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, John Bunting, Jay Marden and Willard Dodge.
Ray Shea stated that the Bussiere application involved 50 acres and proposed 13 lots while the LeBlanc application involved 45 acres and proposed 8 lots. He added that an extension to Indian Falls Road was also proposed to afford road connections through the sites and would traverse through the old Dupuis property to Susan Road. Ray Shea noted that the final applications were represented for both applicants which had been accepted as complete at the last meeting and then the plans were forwarded to the Town Engineer for review. He stated that Northpoint’s comments had been received back approximately ten days prior on both plans and were addressed and returned to them the previous Friday. Ray Shea noted that most of the comments involved minor details with the
only issue regarding the driveway to Lot #12/89-18 that needed a revised design because it entered off a 10% grade section of roadway and this involved moving the driveway and revising its Stormwater Management Plan.
Ray Shea stated that the plans had not changed much since the last meeting and recalled that at the last meeting there was discussion on Klondike Corner and how these applications would impact traffic and the surrounding area. Based on that discussion Ray Shea stated that a meeting was held with the Bussiere family who owned two lots that extended out to Klondike Corner and they were considering a donation of one acre of land for straightening the “T” intersection at this location. He noted that they had met with the Road Agent at the site to discuss this reconfiguration and then submitted a sketch to the Board. Ray Shea further noted that if this were to take place the Bussiere family requested an assurance that any road design done would be constructed in a
way that they could still maintain access to their property and not preclude their frontage. He added that the Bussieres also wanted a time limit placed on the land donation offer where if the reconfiguration were not accomplished in a certain number of years the land would revert back to them.
Dave Woodbury stated that at the last meeting these projects along with one proposed by another applicant, Al Bell, were discussed as having failed in efforts to set aside land for recreational purposes given that these developments would yield a large number of homes in one area. He recalled that given the state of the Town’s Ordinances and Regulations the Board did not have the power to demand land donation but did have the capacity to urge that it be done. The Coordinator replied that this was correct. The Chairman noted that a point had also been raised that even if 5 acres, for example, were donated to the Town it was uncertain who would take responsibility for it and maintain it. Dave Woodbury continued with a second point being the Road Committee’s request that the Board delay development in the area in question until a comprehensive survey of Bedford Road could be done. He noted that this discussion was also a Miscellaneous Business item to be addressed later in
the meeting. Dave Woodbury reiterated his point that he was unsure if by the Road Committee’s request the Board had the power to retard development. The Chairman clarified that the applicants were of the understanding that they could not have their plans approved until details for a secondary access point were in place, therefore, one plan could not be approved without the other which was why they were being presented as a pair. He asked who would be responsible for funding any road straightening or why should the Town have to pay. Don Duhaime thought that a commitment should be required from the developers involved to do that work as their plans along with the Lordens’ were what would cause tremendous impacts to Bedford Road. Ray Shea stated that the LeBlanc’s stance regarding recreational land donation was that they had given a fair amount of restrictive easements for conservation that covered their contribution along with the 5
acres they donated in conjunction with the first phase of the Indian Falls subdivision. He added that the Bussiere’s offer of 1 acres +/- of land to straighten out the “T” intersection at Klondike Corner covered their contribution. The Chairman stated that he favored the Bussiere contribution over the LeBlanc’s. He asked Ray Shea which plans his company had been hired to represent in the area of discussion. Ray Shea replied that they were involved with the LeBlancs, Bussieres and 2 of Al Bell’s projects. He felt certain that the LeBlancs and Bussieres would not favor contributing to the road connection costs over what they had already offered if this was where the discussion was headed. Interested party, John Bunting, asked what the Board used as a standard reference for trips per day by a house lot. James Nordstrom replied that 10 trips per day were assumed which was defined as 10 round trips. Ray Shea
noted that based on a 2004 Traffic Study done for the applications currently under discussion with a percentage of growth included to calculate to present day numbers they approximated 2,750 vehicle trips per day. John Bunting noted that the Board’s number on a peak day was 3,300 vehicles per day. James Nordstrom stated that this number was derived from Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission traffic counts.
Bob Furey asked Ray Shea how he felt the projects proposed would be phased and constructed. Ray Shea replied that in consideration of the three land owners being discussed there would be 8 lots, 13 lots and 8 lots being constructed with the road being constructed first per the Board’s stipulations but for the Shaky Pond development construction was a long way away and they were scheduled to meet with the State and NHDES and were only in preliminary status with the Board on that application. James Nordstrom noted that Al Bell needed Site Specific and Dredge and Fill Permits for his site. Ray Shea agreed and noted that the impending meeting with the State and NHDES would be a substantial one. Bob Furey asked how traffic from other existing subdivisions would play
into the traffic patterns of the proposed plans’ roads. Ray Shea replied that he did not think there would be an issue with this as the Carriage Road traffic, for example, would need to travel in the opposite direction to exit out and would be more inclined to exit out of their own subdivision than Indian Falls. Don Duhaime noted that there would be an influence from the Lorden development also with traffic exiting out Susan Drive and through Indian Falls. Bob Furey stated that safety during road construction was his main point and the fact that there was the potential for traffic from surrounding subdivisions using the proposed connector roads while they were still in the construction phase as it was understood that the connections would need to be established before the homes themselves were built. Ray Shea replied that he could see that scenario happening when the Lorden piece connected into the proposed road network but that was in the distant
future and not set in stone. Cyndie Wilson, Conservation Commission, noted that the area of discussion (Lorden property) was the densest population of small lots in Town. Ray Shea replied that this was why it was suggested by the State that the Lordens join the upcoming NHDES meeting.
Interested party Jay Marden asked Ray Shea to describe the transition process of the LeBlanc land that was donated during the first phase of Indian Falls as he recalled that it had been problematic. He asked how it was possible to get from Bedford Road to the donated land from Indian Falls without crossing private property. Ray Shea replied that an easement was present on the lot in between which was also owned by the LeBlancs. Don Duhaime noted that the easement was created by the prior owner (Chauncey) and the LeBlancs bought the property with that knowledge. Dave Woodbury added that the Town owned the Indian Falls land and when the LeBlanc land was donated it had been unclear if the owners between the Town owned lot and the road had the easement. Ray Shea
stated that he was sure that the easement could be crossed as he handled the lot line adjustment for those lots at the time they were confirmed. Jay Marden stated that he wanted this clarified as Jed Callen, Esq., had claimed that the easements were never completed. Ray Shea replied that he would look into the matter. Jay Marden stated that his third point was that easements over wetlands were worthless to the Town.
Dave Woodbury stated that in the discussions regarding whether or not the Board had a right to require recreational land, wildlife easements, etc., he wondered if the Board did not have that authority than who did. Jay Marden thought that the Master Plan could answer such questions. The Chairman noted that the Master Plan did not require the Board to do anything and that it was merely a guideline to the writing and adoption of ordinances. Jay Marden clarified that the Board or a subcommittee would first have to write an ordinance pertaining to, for example, land donation. Dave Woodbury stated that this sentiment was part of an upcoming $8K Warrant Article to bring such items online in order to support an ordinance that the Town might want. The Coordinator noted
that the previous year $15K was voted in to write ordinances and it had been used on wetlands and open space and the remainder of that money would be used to work on the next items on the list. The Chairman returned to the subject of the LeBlanc land donation and asked if the Chaunceys had written the easement for that piece. The Coordinator replied that she was unsure. Cyndie Wilson wondered if Brad Knight had owned that land prior to the Chaunceys and written the easement. The Coordinator clarified that Brad Knight owned the land behind the land in question and the LeBlancs had honored the easement that came with the land when they purchased it.
John Bunting asked if the Board felt that the donation of 1 acre of land by the Bussieres was sufficient to provide a more standard “T” intersection at Bedford Road/Klondike Corner. He asked what the maximum allocated width was at that location. Ray Shea suggested that a preliminary design might yield the correct measure but thought that it would be 100’. John Bunting stated that he agreed that the intersection should be engineered to a correct alignment for the Town’s benefit prior to any acceptance of the subdivision plans proposed in the area. He added that while he thought the Bussiere’s offer was a friendly one he questioned their stipulations regarding frontage. Ray Shea replied that he may not have clarified that point
properly when he first presented it and explained that the piece given would be incorporated into the right-of-way so that it would shift to include the frontage. John Bunting stated that the Board should assure that this is how the frontage scenario played out by following a new road and not the old road. He added that in adding 450 to 550 cars per day to Bedford Road the Board should consider phasing development so that the Town had time to vote funding in to improve the road or call the development “scattered and premature” because of the impact it would generate on Bedford Road. John Bunting stated that he was sympathetic to the fact that all the development in the plan stages now for this area did not equal the impact that had already been caused by prior development along Bedford Road but that did not mean that the upcoming developments should be exempt from the consideration of being “scattered and premature”. He noted that a
secondary egress was needed near Klondike Corner before the bulk of these proposed lots were built otherwise Bedford Road could suffer serious impacts. The Chairman asked to what extent the straightening of the “T” intersection at Bedford Road would affect traffic flow. John Bunting replied that it would make the intersection safer but he did not think there was enough width at Klondike Corner to accomplish it. Interested party Willard Dodge noted that the 100’ measure was only a guideline. Ray Shea stated that the area of pavement at the intersection would be sizable if the grades were changed. The Chairman thought this was something that could be accomplished. John Bunting inquired about the radius potential. Ray Shea replied that it would reduce as the measure approached 90o anyway. The Chairman asked John Bunting if he was suggesting a second intersection or if cars should enter Bedford Road closer to
Klondike Corner. John Bunting replied that he suggested a secondary exit and a 90o intersection. The Chairman agreed. He added that the Bussiere’s offer was an excellent one but no matter how the adjustments were made vehicles would still need to stop before taking a left onto the continuing portion of Bedford Road at Christie Road. Ray Shea did not feel that was a dangerous intersection. Douglas Hill noted that it was not typical for a main road into a town and another 3,000 cars would compound the issue. Ray Shea stated that he thought it was a stretch to call the applications being discussed “scattered and premature” and Bedford Road was not in such a state that these subdivisions would impact it greatly. He noted that a traffic engineer had previously clarified that Bedford Road was adequate to handle the traffic flow that would be added by these subdivisions. Don Duhaime noted that he lived on Bedford
Road along a curved portion that had seen three roll over accidents in the three years he had lived there. Ray Shea replied that he was not stating that Bedford Road was not accident prone but rather that it was not in bad condition.
The Chairman stated that where the traffic exited out at the first intersection on Bedford Road was one of the worst points for accidents. Interested party Brandy Mitroff stated that given the obvious concerns surrounding Bedford Road the Town might consider having its own traffic study done to support or refute these statements. Dave Woodbury stated that the Road Committee had urged the same and that he would still be interested in establishing what the Board had the power to do regarding this issue such as holding Certificates of Occupancy (CO’s) until the road networks were established. He noted that it might be practical to have a professional determine where these proposed road networks should be and that the Road Committee had urged an audit of Bedford Road up to Wilson Hill. Dave Woodbury was
unsure if it would be possible to hold CO’s while such an audit was being conducted. Don Duhaime stated that prior to plan approvals the Town would have to appropriate money to accomplish such studies and the applicants’ fair share responsibility should be ascertained. The Chairman asked what such as an audit would cost. Don Duhaime and James Nordstrom thought that it would be in the range of $25-35K. The Chairman stated that a second access had been discussed continuously since these plans were conceptualized and the fact that a looped road exiting out toward Klondike Corner would improve the road networks proposed. Ray Shea replied that such a concept was shown 18 months prior, therefore, the applicants were not hiding anything and were aware of the concerns. Don Duhaime stated that the Town needed to take a stance and have a comprehensive study done. James Nordstrom noted that there were other pieces of land not yet in the
mix that would benefit by the efforts being discussed and he was unsure how this should be contemplated as there were many potential contributors to the fair share theory. The Chairman stated that the Lordens, Thibeault Corporation and the three developers being discussed this evening all had the capability to construct a road network. Don Duhaime noted that Thibeault Corporation had previously agreed to fix the Bedford Hill Road intersection at Wilson Hill Road. The Chairman added that the Bussiere’s contribution was likely to be land over funding and that they benefited more than anyone as they could gain frontage on both sides of their property. Interested party Emile Bussiere, Jr., stated that such a benefit had not been anticipated by his family and that they had been approached by other builders who had informed them that the Board wanted the Bussieres to participate on the road network issue. He stated that he did not deny that the outcome
would be fortuitous for his family, however, they were making a concession at this point in donating the acre of land to straighten the “T” intersection at Klondike Corner for the Town’s benefit. The Chairman thanked Emile Bussiere, Jr., and stated that this contribution would be much appreciated. John Bunting stated that, historically, the Board had proportioned improvement costs based on the impact of a subdivision and that cost had been held until all costs had been gathered unless a developer was willing to pay the whole sum. Brandy Mitroff noted that there was a $75K Warrant Article coming up on the Town ballot that, if voted in, would allow the Road Agent to continue work on Bedford Road. Don Duhaime thought that the $75K pertained to rebuilding the box culverts along Bedford Road. Dave Woodbury clarified that the Road Agent’s plan involved two separate increments of $75K over two years and that it was understood that
certain areas should not be improved if it was determined that they would see future improvements anyway. The Chairman asked who handled road improvements for the Town. Dave Woodbury replied that the town Highway Department did not build roads but contracted them out.
Jay Marden stated that his concern was that if the Board approved these plans another plan would come along and have no incentive to make any improvements regarding these issues either. Dave Woodbury stated that he agreed with Mr. Marden’s comments but stressed that the Board needed to demand comprehensive planning and this would involve becoming educated on what the transportation routes were going to be. He added that it would be prudent to consider the properties yet to be developed on the southern and western sides of McCurdy and Bedford Roads as a unit and the Lorden and Bussiere properties plus other unknown owners in the area another unit otherwise the Town will be in a situation where they will be “nickel and dimed” with development. Stu Lewin
agreed that a comprehensive baseline of some degree should be in place. James Nordstrom stated that he did not disagree with the logic of a comprehensive plan for the entire area but did not think that it would be an easy thing to accomplish and if that idea was to be the Board’s rationale going forward legal standpoints should be considered also. Stu Lewin asked what the Board’s purpose was if they could not exercise their discretion in such matters. Douglas Hill noted that there were rules and regulations that needed to be observed also.
Bob Furey stated that he wished to review two points; the first being the possibility of a recreational area coming from either corner Lot #12/88-9 or 12/88-10. He stated that his second point regarded the adequacy of Bedford Road in terms of safety and appropriate design to handle traffic. Bob Furey stated that he was concerned about the application of that design and the Town’s economic response to upgrades. He added that a Traffic Study should take future loading into account. Ray Shea noted that sections of Bedford Road that had already been improved upon seemed to handle traffic loads very well. Douglas Hill added that the “No Through Trucking” signage along Bedford Road was also helpful. Don Duhaime noted that he still saw many
construction trucks along Bedford Road. The Chairman stated that driving along Bedford Road it was obvious that adding a road through the Bussiere’s property afforded better access out because as they stood now these plans were one big cul-de-sac.
Ray Shea stated that in reference to comprehensive planning the property owners had been working three years on the subject of the road connections and he felt that the Board’s consideration of holding CO’s or deeming plans “scattered and premature” was excessive. The Chairman replied that from the onset of these plans it was presented that the proposed road connections would extend out to Klondike Corner and now it was being said that a road may never get there. Ray Shea stated that he was addressing three properties that he recalled the Board had stated could not be considered for approval until a road connection was established. Emile Bussiere, Jr., stated that if the presumption was that the Board would mandate no approvals of plans in this area
until their second lot was developed and a road constructed to Klondike Corner they never would have become involved in the development of their first lot in the first place. Douglas Hill stated that for long term planning another access point was needed
into the Town from the Klondike Corner area and a comprehensive study was needed. He added that in the short term, funding from CIP to tie into a Town wide study along with the Bussiere’s offer of acreage for road improvement were great options. Brandy Mitroff noted that the CIP funding was for road upgrades not new roads. Douglas Hill agreed and clarified that maybe fair share contributions could be considered. He added that he was not saying that in order to get the two plans before the Board tonight approved a second entrance at Klondike Corner would have to be built and that had never been his assumption. James Nordstrom noted that the feasibility of a connection to Bedford Road and its proximity to Klondike Corner was unknown as there were many wetlands in that area and permitting a road through
could go beyond the Town’s jurisdiction. He further noted that this would be a decision for the Selectmen. James Nordstrom stated that while there may be another access point that would benefit the Klondike Corner entrance to Bedford Road it was not an assurance that this would accomplish what it should and inversely may create a failure situation at the intersections with two points of entry converging close together and carrying twice the volume at the same time. Don Duhaime agreed and wondered if a second connection could be accomplished successfully. Dave Woodbury agreed this was an interesting point as a successful outcome was not an assurance at Klondike Corner due to wetlands and ledge in the area. He noted that with that being the case he did not know if any of the plans in question could be approved as they were all contingent on having a successful access point created and the ability to access the Lorden property. Ray Shea
thought that different issues were being introduced because three of the plans referenced were future proposals that were not tied into the Klondike Corner issue. Don Duhaime felt that none the less all these issues needed to be addressed now. Ray Shea replied that the donation of land from the Bussieres helped to do just that. The Chairman stressed that the Bussiere land donation was a wonderful addition to the equation, as it would improve Klondike Corner greatly. He added that now was the time to look at this issue and see if such a roadway was possible. The Chairman further added that he felt the improvement cost should be fairly spread. Emile Bussiere, Jr., asked what time frame was being considered and who the land owners of interest were as it seemed that the Board was unfairly enacting a growth ordinance without an ordinance in place. Willard Dodge wished to note that at the last meeting Ray Shea was asked how feasible it would be to get
across the land necessary to create a new access point at Klondike Corner to which Mr. Shea replied that it would not be easy. He added that, secondly, the Board could beat the subject to death but until they had a legal opinion the matter was in limbo. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she could phrase tonight’s discussion for Town Counsel’s opinion. The Coordinator replied that she could and that she could also provide him with maps of the area.
Cyndie Wilson noted that this was not the first Planning Board to discuss this issue and that when Bo Strong was on the Board he had commented about a plan at the time in that area as being undesirable until there was a better access out to Chestnut Hill Road or Klondike Corner. She added that the Board at the time had also turned down plans in that area three times that were along the tracts of land now owned by Al Bell and the Dupuis Family. Cyndie Wilson thought that better defining the term “premature” for this purpose at the State level would be a good idea. The Chairman noted that showing Al Bell’s site on the plans put them in a more negative light. Ray Shea agreed and suggested that the Board view the plans as if Al Bell’s did not
exist. He did not think that the Bell plans would be built as shown anyway due to what the State would have for input on those and the Lordens. The Chairman suggested that Ray Shea should not come before the Board with Al Bell’s plans until he had negotiated with the Bussiere’s as that plan as it stood now was a big cul-de-sac. He clarified that the other plans of discussion were connected nearly as the Board had requested with the exception of the fact that the Board was looking for a road to Klondike Corner but that Al Bell’s plan was more contingent on this than the ones before the Board tonight.
The Chairman summarized that Town Counsel’s opinion on the matter would be helpful. Don Duhaime added that the Selectmen should be approached in order that funding could be appropriated to do what the Road Committee had suggested. Ray Shea asked if the legal opinion involved tying the proposed subdivisions to certain concessions. The Chairman replied that it did along with the subject of road improvement at Klondike Corner and a comprehensive Town survey as previously discussed. John Bunting noted that disregarding Al Bell’s plan meant that they were avoiding the possibility that his site might offer a logical way out to Klondike Corner. Ray Shea replied that a concept for that type of exit point had been done, however, what was on these plans
seemed to be a better direction. John Bunting thought that the Town should get engineered plans of road designs also. Jay Marden thought that until a firm commitment was received from the Bussieres the approval of the current plans could still leave questionable outcomes if, for example, the Bussieres decided to donate all their land for conservation purposes.
The Chairman stated that Town Counsel’s opinion on the matter would be sought. Dave Woodbury noted that an extension to the Board’s deadline for action would be needed as it was up on March 15, 2007. The Coordinator asked if the applicant would be willing to extend the deadline to March 27, 2007. Ray Shea agreed.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to extend the deadline for Board action and to adjourn the application of Jacqueline Bussiere Et Al, Major Subdivision, 13, Lots, Location: Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/89, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District and Mark E. LeBlanc Trust 2004, Major Subdivision, 6 Lots, Location: Indian Falls Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/89, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to March 27, 2007, at 7:30 p.m. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 9:45 p.m. +/-, the Board took a short break.
LOCUS FIELD, LLC
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/NRSPR/Condominium
Location: Kettle Lane
Tax Map/Lot #13/15-5
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and the applicant Rob Starace. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the site was located on 3.68 acres on the southeast side of Kettle Lane which was off Salisbury Road. He noted that the lots had been approved in a previous subdivision application for units with 8 bedroom loading and this application was for two 3 bedroom units (6 total). Bob Todd, LLS, added that wetlands on the site cut through the property, therefore all building and improvements would take place on the northern side of that wetland. He noted that the usual limited common areas were present through the middle of the structure. Bob Todd, LLS, further noted that a portion of the existing drainage easement overlapped the eastern side of the lot and would not be disturbed. He stated that the applicant had been notified last week of
State Subdivision Approval and had received the certificate today.
The Chairman noted that waivers had been requested for the requirement of the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. He stated that the waivers were easily considered as the structure was already up and the proposal was for a condex conversion. The Chairman added that he had driven by the site and saw no issues. Douglas Hill added that he had also driven by the site and was satisfied. No other Board members had any concerns.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to grant the waiver requests for the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the application of Locus Field, LLC, Minor Subdivision, NRSPR, Condominium, Location: Kettle Lane, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-5, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Rob Starace stated that in the past some of the units had inadvertently gotten CO’s without compliance approvals. He asked if there was any way that the compliance could be pre-approved to move the process along for all the units. The Chairman replied that he was not sure that all the units had yet been verified. Rob Starace noted that the Chairman stated that he had driven by the site. The Chairman responded that he had been viewing specific units at the time but suggested that the applicant get a list together of what was left to be checked and the Board could consider that remainder all at once since he had never noted any compliance issues on the site thus far. He asked what units remained to be checked for compliance. Rob Starace replied that
the units on Lot #’s 13/15-6 and 8 remained but were not constructed yet. The Coordinator explained that if it was clearer on the plan when construction was completed versus when the applicant still needed to build then it would be helpful as she could inform the Board to go out and view the site.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the Condex Site Plan, Salisbury Crossing, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-5, Kettle Lane, Locus Field, LLC, 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. Submission of any outstanding application fees and the fees for recording at the HCRD.
The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be April 15, 2007, 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 building 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 April 15, 2007, the confirmation of which shall be determined at a compliance hearing as noted in item #4 above. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
LOCUS FIELD, LLC
Compliance Hearing
Minor Subdivision/NRSPR/Condominium
Location: Kettle Lane
Tax Map/Lot #13/15-7
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and the applicant Rob Starace. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if there were any outstanding issues with compliance and the Coordinator replied there were not. Dave Woodbury noted that he had driven by the site and everything seemed to be in order.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to confirm that Locus Field, LLC has complied with the conditions precedent and subsequent to the approval of the condominium subdivision and site plan, Unit A & Unit B, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-7, Kettle Lane and to release the hold on the Certificate of Occupancy/Use Permit to be issued by the Building Department above.
Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Board discussion, re: future planning, recreation, open space, etc.
The Chairman asked the Board their thoughts on having discussions such as this earlier in the evening as any time scheduled past 11:00 p.m. was less productive due to the late hour. James Nordstrom agreed and noted that the Rules of Procedures allowed for such options. The Chairman noted that in the past the Board had opted to have discussions like this at 6:30 p.m. prior to the start of the hearings, however, he did not think he could be available at that time. James Nordstrom agreed that time needed to be set aside to deal with substantial issues such as these. Dave Woodbury pointed out that the above noted topics were vaguely discussed at hearings earlier this evening and that Town Counsel’s guidance would be sought on these subjects also. He added
that tension seemed to exist around the topic of whether the Board could actually do planning tasks or if they merely approved subdivisions as they were presented. Dave Woodbury further noted that that, technically, the Board did have some discretion although he was unsure at times of how much. He thought the example of the subdivisions discussed tonight for the Leblancs, Bussiere, Lordens and Bell might force that question by confirming what power the Board had over such issues.
The Chairman stated that it was still unclear what the Town might want for recreational land even if it were offered by developers. Dave Woodbury thought that some idea was known given the results of the Town questionnaire. He noted that 394 people had commented that maintain the Town character and preserving the Village District was important to them, however, he noted that it was unclear if those 394 people had the same mindset as to what that meant which was where the Planning Board came into play. Dave Woodbury stated that tackling these issues would be hard work over a long period of time and perhaps working on two discrete issues at a time, for example, recreational land and the possibility of more Commercial Zoning, was a way to accomplish more. He noted that
it would be worthwhile to limit themselves and see if Ordinances or revamping Ordinances could accommodate certain projects versus trying to redesign the entire Town. Dave Woodbury added that in terms of recreational land it might make sense to have the Recreation Department in on that discussion. He noted that other Board members may have different opinions on what subjects should be addressed first. Bob Furey stated that given the dense area at the Klondike Corner end of Bedford Road and the impending subdivisions the addition of a corner store at that end of Town could reduce the traffic flow into the Village and along the continuing stretch of Bedford Road. He asked if rezoning a house lot to Commercial Zoning would require a Town vote. Dave Woodbury replied that it would and although it could not go on the ballot for this March something could certainly be put in the works for the 2008 ballot vote. He noted that many other areas of Town
would become densely populated over time. Don Duhaime asked if a corner store should be constructed near the questionable intersection at Bedford Road as it could cause traffic back-ups. Dave Woodbury replied that he was unsure and it may not be the best location but this was an example of why the Board needed to act properly in handling these issues going forward if they were going to act at all. Bob Furey stated that this was why he noted a couple of lots to Ray Shea at the LeBlanc/Bussiere hearing to go on record that these thought were in the forefront with the Board. Douglas Hill thought that any commercial structure should go on Bedford Road versus having to drive through a residential neighborhood. Dave Woodbury stated that maybe the power that the Board had involved rezoning versus what type of Commercial structure could be placed on a lot. Douglas Hill noted that the size of a lot would help to dictate what type of Commercial structure
could be placed there. Dave Woodbury recalled that, historically, the Town had not been receptive to the idea of Commercial Zoning and wanted to maintain a character similar to Old Sturbridge Village, MA., however, he felt that residents were become more realistic about the benefits of Commercial development serving a general and useful purpose. The Chairman returned to the subject of not wanting Commercial structures in residential neighborhoods and thought that the outskirts of Town would be more palatable although he realized the business would need to be located appropriately to draw revenue. Dave Woodbury stated that he was thinking of the area at Chestnut Hill Road from Klondike Corner to the Bedford, NH town line. James Nordstrom stated that another option would be the idea of a mixed-use neighborhood that was primarily residential with small scale commercial use allowed. He noted that the feasibility of such neighborhoods were generally driven by the
economics of traffic counts in the area. Willard Dodge noted that another option to gaining recreational land would be to approach landowners not currently subdividing who had farm land or land slated for conservation that they might wish to donate for recreational purposes.
John Bunting stressed that developers tended to offer the usual caveat that none of their land was suitable for donation as a recreation piece yet you never saw a house built on rocky unsuitable land as they seemed to find a way to flatten it, install lawns and make it work. He felt that developers could do the same to make recreational pieces available and the Board should not accept the word of developers outright when they said land was not available for donation. John Bunting added that the Town needed an advocate on their side. Bob Furey stated that he agreed with Dave Woodbury’s earlier comments that the Recreation Department should be included in discussions to see what type of land they would like. Dave Woodbury noted that the Recreation
Department’s focus was currently on a new Recreation building near the School and they already had a ball field near the Transfer Station, therefore, their plans may not be central to the Board’s thinking. Bob Furey added that maintenance issues for a ball field on the outskirts of Town could be an issue along with safety if there was a combined recreational piece that, for example, had walking trails and the likelihood that many children would be using the space, climbing trees, etc. Douglas Hill stated that he still thought that additional recreational pieces of land were needed for dense neighborhoods outside of Town. Brandy Mitroff agreed. The Coordinator stated that she had spoken with Mike Sindoni and he was focusing on a community building for Recreation. She added that the ball field near the Transfer Station had irrigation issues, therefore, he would like to get a piece of land that did not need revamping. The Coordinator
further added that Mike Sindoni was concerned about traffic flow to a new ball field and maintenance, therefore, would like it to be centrally located. She noted that while pocket parks were an option they also would need to be maintained. The Coordinator stated that Mike Sindoni would like to speak with the Board regarding getting a Master plan done for the Town regarding Recreation. James Nordstrom wondered what the case would be if a piece of land was made available and who would pay to establish it for recreational use. The Chairman added that there was also the question of who would want to live next to recreational land. Brandy Mitroff noted that she had seen plans in horse communities and upscale communities around the country that incorporated parks and playgrounds as part of their marketing package for a subdivision. She suspected that the covenants of those communities dictated how maintenance of these amenities was handled.
Douglas Hill stated that from a developer’s standpoint New Boston was a difficult town to work in because of its landscape and developers needed to fight for every lot they could secure for a site. He added that the neighborhoods constructed in the last five years in the town seemed to be on small lots with questionable terrain and wetlands. Douglas Hill thought that the sand pit area off Riverdale Road or the land next to the Post Office might be a suitable place for a recreational use. John Bunting thought that even if land could not be established for recreational use presently a lot deed to the Town for future use was beneficial as once it became a house lot it would be gone forever. He noted that the board could gain more empowerment by addressing this issue through the Regulations or looking at how the Regulations could be adjusted to help the process. Douglas Hill recalled that Thibeault Corporation had come forward with the donation
of some good viable land for the Town in exchange for greater subdivision density. The Chairman noted that Thibeault Corporation was the first developer to come forward with land.
The Coordinator stated that many towns collected impact fees from developers for recreational options and part of the $8K Warrant Article study was to see how such impact fees could work for the Town. The Chairman thought more input was need from the Recreation Department also. Don Duhaime asked if the Town had the option of using funds to buy land from developers and if that would require a Town vote. Dave Woodbury stated that a vote would be needed. Brandy Mitroff pointed out that the Conservation Commission had funds available to purchase land. Dave Woodbury replied that there would need to be clarification on what uses those funds could be put to for land. Douglas Hill reiterated that he still thought the density option in open space subdivisions with
developers was a powerful tool for the Town. Brandy Mitroff stated that the Town needed to advocate for itself in this matter. The Chairman noted that he did not move to New Boston to see how many services he could get and that when he was growing up the concept of parks was for inner city children who did not have yards of their own to play in. Dave Woodbury stated that if the Board was to be an advocate for the Town in this matter they need to decide what they were advocating for and how to do it. He thought that the Board should have a half hour session at each Planning Board meeting for this purpose and that the Recreation Department should be invited to one of those discussions. The Board agreed. Willard Dodge thought it would be beneficial to have Town Counsel sit in on a meeting about this. Brandy Mitroff noted that Town Counsel could guide the Board on how to use the current Regulations to legally gain the ability to do the Road
Committee’s requested study or possibly to be able to label certain subdivision proposal “scattered and premature”. She further noted the example of Al Bell’s conceptual plan that has no road to connect to currently. She wondered why he was approaching the Board as his plan seemed to be land locked. Stu Lewis replied that if the Board did not know that subdivision was being planned then tonight’s discussion might not be taking place. Brandy Mitroff stated that to use hours of meeting time on a plan that had no point of connection seemed excessive. Don Duhaime thought that Al Bell had the right to present as this was planning. Brandy Mitroff noted that the Board had the discretion to say to such applicants that they should come back later. Don Duhaime disagreed and stated that this was how developers stayed afloat in that they secured lots that might not be constructed for years but were at least in the works. Brandy Mitroff did not think that the Al Bell issue should be the
Town’s problem to deal with now. Don Duhaime noted that the Board could not stop applicants from planning. The Chairman added that the Board encouraged applicants to come forward with conceptual build-outs. Brandy Mitroff replied that the potential road out to Klondike Corner had been discussed for years and she recalled that when the first two phases of the Indian Falls subdivision were approved the Board had stated that “this was it” until that connection could be guaranteed.
John Bunting thought that it would be beneficial for the Board to have small copies of the Tax Maps on the table during their meetings so that they could see the big picture of surrounding land when one parcel presented. He recalled a previous applicant that was subdividing 3 lots but the abutting property was 50 to 60 acres of undeveloped land and this had become a vital part of that discussion.
The Coordinator stated that the Board had received copies of the minutes from the meeting attended by Jack Munn (SNHPC) who spoke about his smart growth audit with focus points, the Future Land Use map from the Master Plan, etc. She noted that it would be the Board’s decision to choose what they wished to target to work on next. Dave Woodbury stated that given the late hour he felt the Board had discussed as much as they could tonight but that they should dedicate a half hour each meeting going forward. He suggested that because Recreation seemed to be a point of interest that they pick up with it next time and invite Mike Sindoni or a representative from his office to sit in. Don Duhaime asked if the Agenda could be trimmed down to allow ample time for such
discussion as many subdivision applications seemed to exceed their time limits. The Chairman replied that sometimes the times were exceeded but this was the natural process of gaining momentum with topics the Board felt strongly about when dealing with certain plans. He noted that the Board tried its best to keep the Agenda moving on time. The Coordinator noted that because the Agenda for the next meeting was already confirmed the Board would need to have their half hour discussion toward the end of the evening again but that the following meeting could have it moved to the beginning and invite Recreation to sit in.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 2007
8. Discussion, re: Tim Crowell, 456 Chestnut Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #15/29-2, Auto Body Shop Home Business.
Tim Crowell was present for this item. He stated that he lived near the Bedford, NH, town line on Chestnut Hill Road and would like to open a car restoration business on his residential property. Tim Crowell noted that his home was set back from the road approximately a tenth of a mile and his shop was half of a tenth of a mile beyond that. The Chairman asked Mr. Crowell if he had neighbors. Tim Crowell replied that he had one neighbor visible from his woods with Pulpit Rock on one side, power lines and some light commercial industrial zoned land on the other side. He noted that his house and shop were on two acres of land with nothing behind it except for the distant abutter. Dave Woodbury suggested that Tim Crowell talk to his neighbor about his
proposal and get their impressions. The Chairman disagreed and thought that Mr. Crowell should not say anything to his neighbor as this could invite unnecessary conflicts. He noted that Section 319 of the Zoning Ordinance provided guidelines for applying for a home business and that there were no legalities that prevented Mr. Crowell from having such a business. The Chairman added that it was not unusual for neighbors in such cases to speak falsities and get the attention of the ZBA to complicate matters, however, the Planning Board had historically granted approvals for businesses such as this in the Town. He explained that in Section 319 of Zoning there was a reference application that described what information would be needed on the plan and that he should confirm that the business he proposed fit within these guidlelines, such as having no outside storage, potential for excessive traffic, etc. Dave Woodbury thought that Tim Crowell’s
description of a “restoration” type business suggested high end, low volume work. Tim Crowell replied that was correct and that he would be the only employee. Dave Woodbury recalled a similar business on Meadow Road and suggested that Mr. Crowell could contact that home business owner to trade ideas.
Tim Crowell stated that his business would not be visible from the road. The Chairman noted that the Town’s Zoning required that the home was the main use on the property and the body shop subordinate to that. He explained that the Planning Assistant could provide him the guidelines from Section 319 of Zoning then he could submit his plan at a hearing giving a brief overview of his proposal that included hours of operation, etc. The Chairman assumed that Tim Crowell’s plan would qualify as a Minor site plan as he was not proposing employees that would exceed 2 or excess parking. Tim Crowell stated that he would not have outside storage. The Chairman noted that this was not allowed anyway and that was one reason that the plan would be defined as a
home business versus a body shop that was in Commercial Zoning. He explained that a home business was not allowed to change the character of the neighborhood that it was located in.
The Chairman stated that the application process would not be a difficult one. He asked the dimensions of the shop. Tim Crowell replied that it was 30’ X 40’. The Chairman clarified that projects should be able to be stored inside the shop. Tim Crowell added that he also had a storage shed on his property. The Chairman noted that this shed would also become part of the plan. He added that he was unsure how the State regulated paint booths for body shops. John Bunting offered that he knew that a roof was necessary. The Chairman added that outside painting would not be allowed for the business. He asked if the shop had floor drains. Tim Crowell replied that they were in the middle of the shop floor. The
Chairman replied that in some cases the best way to assure that drainage does not become an issue is to plug the drains permanently.
1. Approval of minutes of December 19, 2006, and January 9, 2007, distributed at the January 23, 2007, meeting, with or without changes. (No Copies)
James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of December 19, 2006 and January 9, 2007, as written. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The minutes of January 23, 2007, were distributed for approval at the meeting of February 27, 2007, meeting, with or without changes.
3. Copies of All Boards Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2006, and January 26, 2007. (No copies. Previously distributed by e-mail.)
4. Receipt of copy of Application for Designation of the General John Stark Scenic Byway as a Cultural & Science Byway. (Application available in office) No Copies.
The Coordinator explained that the towns of Goffstown, Weare, New Boston and Dunbarton, NH, had submitted a joint application to design a loop encompassing River Road, NH Routes 77, 114 and 13 as a scenic byway. The Chairman asked what this would accomplish. The Coordinator replied that with such status these towns would be eligible for Federal Funds for things like byways, scenic development, etc. She added that the selectmen and planning boards from these towns signed this resolution as they thought it was a good idea.
5. A copy of a letter received January 26, 2007, from Stantec Consulting Services, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Waldorf Estates Phase II-Pavement Shim and Guardrail letter was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that there would be a meeting the following Tuesday (February 20, 2007), with Rene LaBranche and Seth Potter of Stantec, Seff Enterprises and Pike Paving to discuss the paving issues at Waldorf Estates. The Chairman asked when the shim coat was going on. The Coordinator replied that it had already been applied and that the developer’s issue was that if the road was in good form when the base coat had been applied and the crown was satisfactory then why was it necessary to put the shim coat on before the top coat. She added that this is why Seff Enterprises thought that the bill exceeded $7K but Stantec claimed that the $7K encompassed other items.
6. Discussion, re: transferring all remaining road inspections & follow up from Stantec to Northpoint Engineering.
The Coordinator asked if the Board thought this was a good idea as there were still a few roads in Town that required spring inspections and final top coats, namely: Kettle, Daylily and Hutchinson Lanes. She suggested that it may be a good idea to transfer the inspections now to bring things up to date. James Nordstrom clarified that the roads named were close to completion. The Coordinator replied that they were.
7. Discussion, re: Rules of Procedure.
The Chairman wondered if the Board had noticed his different procedure this evening in asking for the Board’s opinion before giving his own. He recommended that the Board be more participatory by offering their opinions before he did to applicants as, in this way, he could act in a more supportive role to the Board’s statements, as long as he was in agreement, rather than speaking out first and creating the perception that the Board was merely repeating what he stated. He noted that if the Board became more familiar with applications and asked more pointed questions it would not be necessary to get recaps of the plan each time an applicant returned from an adjournment. Bob Furey asked if Board members were allowed to discuss upcoming meetings by email to help
in preparation. The Chairman replied that it would not be considered appropriate to email opinions back and forth as members may not have all the information before them on an application. He added that decisions and discussion should be had with the applicant and communicating outside of a Board meeting could cause an issue. Bob Furey agreed but added that he found it challenging to come to a Board meeting and feel fully prepared. He wondered if meeting one night every two weeks was sufficient. James Nordstrom thought that while general questions about the regulations, for instance, outside of a meeting were not harmful, anything specific to an application that could affect a vote was. The Chairman clarified that as long a fact was being discussed over opinion he did not think there would be an issue. Stu Lewis asked if there would be a way to handle such questions in a public forum but over the Town website. James Nordstrom noted
that the public would have to be able to view the same information. John Bunting further noted that this idea could not be taken too far or else a posting would be necessary. The Chairman stated that this was the same reasoning behind why limited discussion among Board members could take place at site walks for applicants. Bob Furey thought that matters of general opinion regarding Ordinances should be able to be discussed outside a Board meeting as long as it was not specifically tied to an applicant.
9. Discussion, re: Stuart Clark Insurance.
The Coordinator explained that the owner of the building renting to Stuart Clark Insurance and Tate’s Gallery was attempting to qualify that the building had been in place for Commercial use with the parking spaces available as they were for quite some time. She added that the Highway Department and Selectmen should be asked to confirm grandfathered status for parking and a call to the State should be made. James Nordstrom asked the location of the Town’s right-of-way. He also asked if a Cease and Desist order had been issued to the businesses involved. The Coordinator replied that the Building Inspector had notified the building owner, Robert Dodge, who resided in Mississippi, of the issue and he had drafted the plan before the Board now. The
Chairman stated that the State needed to be contacted. The Coordinator added that the matter would then be addressed by the Highway Department and the Selectmen.
James Nordstrom MOVED to extend the meeting past 11:30 p.m. Bob Furey seconded the motion. Don Duhaime opposed. The motion PASSED.
10. Discussion, re: R & R Realty Trust by Richard Renshaw, 662 North Mast Road.
The Coordinator explained that parking was questionable on the site and asked if the Board would like the Building Inspector to confirm it against the site plan. The Board thought this was a good idea.
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board as his items were up next.
11a). A copy of a letter dated February 5, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Christian Farm Estates, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Addressed with item 11b).
11b). Discussion, re: Doug Hill’s road construction estimate.
Bob Furey stated that he had read Northpoint’s letter of response to Douglas Hill regarding his questioning of what he viewed to be an excessively high construction monitoring estimate and thought the tone of the letter to be somewhat unwilling to concede. Don Duhaime asked what the purpose was for the three retaining walls noted in the itemizations. Douglas Hill replied that they were necessary because of sight distance issues at the proposed road entrance since he would need to cut away a portion of that land and then support it with retaining walls. Bob Furey asked if the construction monitoring estimate money was required to be an up-front lump sum. The Coordinator replied that it was.
Douglas Hill stated that he had spoken with Mr. Leonard of Northpoint and had told him that he thought the estimate was very high. He added that Mr. Leonard had replied that the estimate was conservative per the Planning Coordinator’s advice to be conservative. He noted that he then went to an unbiased company whom he had never worked with (CLD) and got an estimate for the same plans free of charge. He noted that CLD was experienced in doing construction monitoring estimates and submitted a copy of their estimate to the Board. James Nordstrom asked what Northpoint’s estimate had come in at. Douglas Hill replied that it was $60,060.00 and showed James Nordstrom a copy. He noted that CLD was familiar with New Boston’s Regulations and went
through his plan. Douglas Hill added that in up-front lump sum escrows for construction monitoring it was not common to get money back but rather to pay over the escrow. James Nordstrom agreed that it was very common for such escrows to be underbid. The Chairman asked if it would be possible to only take half the escrow now and the other half at a later time. The Coordinator replied that doing so would be an administrative nightmare which was attempted for another applicant and she urged the Board to never do it again. The Chairman asked who that applicant was. The Coordinator replied that it was Thibeault Corporation. Douglas Hill stated that he just wanted a fair accounting of the estimate. Dave Woodbury stated that he assumed any leftover escrow was returned to an applicant with interest. The Coordinator replied that was correct. Dave Woodbury realized that Douglas Hill sought fair treatment and noted that because this
was a new Town Engineer along with the applicant’s first subdivision in the Town the situation may need to be accepted for what it was. Don Duhaime asked Douglas Hill if he thought his subdivision would be completed within a year’s time. Douglas Hill replied that it most likely would not be but he did not want to be the guinea pig for a new Town Engineer. He added that if he was required to place $60K into escrow he was certain that he would not be getting any type of refund from it. Bob Furey wondered who determined whether the Town Engineer was over-inspecting a construction site. Douglas Hill noted that the Town Engineer’s bid was compared to bids on the same site for $30K and he would like to know how they arrived at the number they did. The Coordinator noted that although New Boston was the first municipality that Northpoint had dealt with they had done construction monitoring work before and she told them to be
conservative in their estimate as it was in the best interest of the Town. She added that Northpoint stood behind their estimate and that Kevin Leonard of Northpoint had stated that he was comfortable with the number given any unknown circumstances that could arise. James Nordstrom noted that there were no comparative construction monitoring estimates done in the Town for subdivisions with a 3,000’ cul-de-sac. Douglas Hill disagreed and offered the example of Pasture Lane which had a 2,800’ cul-de-sac and a construction monitoring estimate of $40K by Stantec. He added that another example was Swanson Road which originally had a $45K estimate and $15K later for all the changes that were found necessary which included blasting. Douglas Hill stated that in light of such examples he did not understand why his estimate had come in so high. Don Duhaime claimed that there were a lot of monitoring hours included for the cistern inspection.
Douglas Hill stated that he had a lot of issues with his estimate and asked the Board what his options were if he did not accept it. He added that Northpoint was $15.00/hour cheaper than the two other competitive bidders and their estimate was still the highest. James Nordstrom noted that Northpoint based its construction administrative costs on 20% of the subtotal. The Chairman asked Northpoint’s hourly rate. Douglas Hill replied that it was $75.00/hour. James Nordstrom agreed that the estimate seemed high, however, it was very common that the monitoring estimate came in low and as the construction process went on that number grew. He added that the Board had seen this happen and heard the complaints from applicants. James Nordstrom suggested
that Northpoint may be approaching the situation inversely but there was a level of uncertainty and in his personal opinion the estimate was higher than what one would normally expect to see for such a subdivision. Douglas Hill stated that the other engineering firms he contacted, who did have experience doing estimates for municipalities, agreed. Dave Woodbury assumed the process could be audited to confirm if overcharging occurred. He noted that the only two options were to request less in escrow which would be problematic for the Coordinator, or fire Northpoint, therefore, the best choice was to watch them carefully.
Douglas Hill thought that 50 hours of inspection on a cistern as they had in his estimate seemed excessive. Dave Woodbury thought that this should be brought to Northpoint’s attention and itemized in a letter to them. Douglas Hill noted that he assumed Northpoint’s calculation based on a “3,900’” cul-de-sac was a typographical error. The Coordinator stated that it was as Douglas Hill’s design engineer had started the road at 1,000’ instead of starting at 0’ and this had been picked up by Kevin Leonard when he re-checked the plan. Douglas Hill asked if there was any precedent in Town of having another firm besides the Town Engineer do an estimate if an applicant could not reach an agreement with them. James
Nordstrom replied that this happened once and was a big mistake. Douglas Hill stressed that this was a new company dealing with the Town and their first municipality. He stated that the 474 hours of inspection on the estimate equaled 40 hours/week for 12 weeks.
The Chairman suggested that Douglas Hill highlight the items he questioned on the estimate and it could be submitted to Northpoint under the Chairman’s request. Douglas Hill stated that he wanted to do everything possible that was expedient to the cause. James Nordstrom asked the Coordinator if it was a fair statement that hiring an outside consultant over the Town Engineer was not a smooth process. The Coordinator agreed that the one time they had done this it had caused many conflicts with the applicant and the Town. Don Duhaime asked Douglas Hill if he had spoken personally with Northpoint. Douglas Hill replied that he had spent an hour conversing with them and was done. Bob Furey stated that CLD’s estimate recognized the cistern, ordinary
items and had basic input. Douglas Hill replied that CLD had reviewed his plan for one week before submitting their estimate. Bob Furey noted that retaining walls were not included on Northpoint’s estimate. Douglas Hill replied that he assumed that the design review fee would cover that cost. The Coordinator replied that this was what was hoped for, however, when the design review estimate was done there was no plan for the retaining walls so they did not know how long it would take for their inspection.
12. A copy of a letter dated January 22, 2007, from New Boston Road Committee, to New Boston Planning Board, re: Bedford Road Improvements, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman stated that in the above noted letter, the Road Committee was requesting an audit of Bedford Road. Dave Woodbury noted that the Selectmen had a copy of this letter and needed to decide what route to take versus how such an audit could be funded. Don Duhaime noted that the Bedford Road improvements on the CIP were at $75K and asked if some of these funds could be used. Dave Woodbury replied that they probably could be, however, the Road Agent had earmarked this money for other uses. He recalled that Don Duhaime thought an audit of Bedford Road would cost approximately $30K and the question was whether the Town was responsible to shoulder that burden entirely. James Nordstrom noted that the data that such an audit would provide was available already
via the parties that had performed traffic counts on Bedford Road such as Laurie Russeo and they should be contacted first which could save the Town some money.
13. A copy of a letter dated January 24, 2007, from Dwight Sowerby, Drescher and Dokmo, PA, to New Boston Planning Department, re: Quitclaim deeds for Pulpit Road, SHB Properties, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Douglas Hill MOVED to release the above noted letter to SHB Properties. James
Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
14. A copy of an Article from New Hampshire Sunday News, January 28, 2007,
titled Census: NH can catch its breath, was distributed for the Board’s information.
15. A copy of an article from New Boston Bulletin, February 2007, titled New Boston: We’ve got a problem!, was distributed for the Board’s information.
16. A copy of a letter received February 7, 2007, New Boston Fire Department, to Planning Board, re: cul de sac lengths, was distributed for the Board’s information.
17. A copy of a letter received February 7, 2007, from Public Service of New Hampshire, to New Boston Planning Board, re: Transmission Line Easements, Procedures and Survey Requirements, was distributed for the Board’s information.
18. Read File: Public Notice from the Town of Epsom, Board of Adjustment, Re: Zoning Appeal Case 2007-01 (Arvanitis Variance) for the Application to construct a Personal Wireless Service Facility.
19. Notice of Merger for Raymond A. & Carol A. Houghton, 467 Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot #14/81, 14/86 & 14/87, for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator explained that this merger would combine undersized parcels created pre-Zoning and make one parcel for assessing and tax purposes. She noted that the new parcel could never be subdivided back as the lots would be too small, therefore, doing this merger would eliminate the presence of these non-conforming lots.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the Notice of Merger for Raymond A. & Carol A. Houghton, Tax Map/Lot #’s 14/81, 14/86 and 14/87. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
20. Driveway Permit Applications for compliance approval for Frederick & Celia Lorden, Nissitissit Development, McCurdy Road, Tax Map/Lot #’s 12/19-1, 12 & 13, for the Board’s action. (No Copies)
The Coordinator stated that the Road Agent had viewed the driveways and checked their grades with a level. She added that he had signed off on all three driveways. Don Duhaime thought that there were still issues with several of the driveways and James Nordstrom was uncomfortable with the driveway to Lot #12/19-12. In light of the Road Agent’s signoff and apparent comfort with the driveways as installed the Chairman called for a motion.
Douglas Hill MOVED to confirm compliance for the installation of a driveway by Nissitissit Development, Tax Map/Lot #12/19-1, Permit #03-030. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion. James Nordstrom, Douglas Hill, Dave Woodbury and Bob Furey voted in favor. Don Duhaime was opposed. The motion PASSED.
Douglas Hill MOVED to confirm compliance for the installation of a driveway by Nissitissit Development, Tax Map/Lot #12/19-12, Permit #03-038. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion. Bob Furey, Dave Woodbury and Douglas Hill, Dave Woodbury voted in favor. James Nordstrom and Don Duhaime were opposed. The motion PASSED.
Douglas Hill MOVED to confirm compliance for the installation of a driveway by Nissitissit Development, Tax Map/Lot #12/19-13, Permit #03-039. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion. James Nordstrom, Douglas Hill, Dave Woodbury and Bob Furey voted in favor. Don Duhaime was opposed. The motion PASSED.
21. A copy of a letter dated January 30, 2007, from David Preece, SNHPC, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, Re: Update of the State of NH 10-yr Transportation Improvement Plan, FY 2009-2018, was distributed for the Board’s information.
22. A copy of an article from the February 2007 issue of American Planning Association, was distributed for the Board’s information.
23. Read File: Public Notice Hearing on March 7, 2007, from the Town of Epping Zoning Board of Appeals, Re: Height Variance to build a 150 foot wireless telecommunications facility.
24. Read File: Public Notice Hearing on February 15, 2007, from the Town of Lyndeborough Planning Board, Re: Granite State Concrete’s excavation permit renewal application.
25a. Motion in Limine, Patrick Golding, Kim Burkhamer, Thomas Clapp and Richard Searle V. Town of New Boston (Planning Board).
25b. Notice of Court Trial, Patrick Golding, Kim Burkhamer, Thomas Clapp and Richard Searle V. Town of New Boston.
25c. The Board will enter into non-public pursuant to RSA 91-A:3, II, e, to discuss letter from Town Counsel, re: Golding et al vs. Town of New Boston.
Douglas Hill MOVED to enter into non-public session, pursuant to RSA 91-A:3, II, e. Bob Furey seconded the motion. The Chairman polled the Board. James Nordstrom – AYE, Don Duhaime – AYE, Bob Furey – AYE, Dave Woodbury – AYE, Douglas Hill – AYE, Stu Lewin – AYE. The Board entered non-public.
The Board discussed a confidential letter from Town Counsel in the matter of the pending litigation, Golding et al vs. Town of New Boston. No motions were made.
James Nordstrom MOVED to exit non-public session. Bob Furey seconded the motion. The Chairman polled the Board. James Nordstrom – AYE, Don Duhaime – AYE, Bob Furey – AYE, Dave Woodbury – AYE, Douglas Hill – AYE, Stu Lewin – AYE. The Board exited non-public.
At 12:30 a.m. Don Duhaime MOVED to adjourn. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien,
Recording Clerk
| 
