New Boston, NH - Planning Board Minutes 02/27/2007

Planning Board Minutes 02/27/2007


	Minutes of the Planning Board February 27, 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 alternate 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 Al Bell, Jim Bath, Ray Shea, Burr Tupper, Cyndie Wilson, Kim DiPietro, Bob Todd, LLS, Brandy Mitroff, Albert and Carol LaChance, Jack Bielagus, Esq., George and Rebecca Ann Fragos, Ken Barss and Jim Dodge. SHAKY POND DEVELOPMENT, LLC Work Session/Design Review/Major Subdivision/27 Lots Location: Susan Road Tax Map/Lot #15/15 Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering and Al Bell and Jim Bath of Shaky Pond Development, LLC. Interested parties present were abutter Cyndie Wilson, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission and Brandy Mitroff. The Chairman stated that he had been informed that Al Bell wished to address some specific issues at the outset of the hearing. Al Bell noted that he wished to read down the list of issues which the Board had a copy of. He stated that the first item involved a letter received from the Board of Fire Wards that questioned the distance of an existing cistern from the site. Al Bell noted that they measured the road’s travel distance and all proposed lots on Susan Road were covered as they were within the required 2,200’ of distance to the cistern. The second item regarded a letter from the Library and although he did not think it was relevant to this subdivision Al Bell stated that they would commit to making a donation to the Library. He stated that the third item involved concerns expressed by abutter Cyndie Wilson, the first of which involved a beaver dam which she felt was on the Shaky Pond Development property. Al Bell noted that they were unsure how much of the dam crossed onto their property line and Ray Shea was checking on this. He added that he had no issue placing covenants on the proposed lot that the beaver dam might cross onto for its protection. Al Bell further added that they had no intention of trapping beavers and felt that State and local regulations were over and above any measures they could take for their protection, however, if there was no legal reason why they could not place additional restrictive covenants concerning this issue they were willing to do so. The next item on the list involved the questionable existence of a Black Gum tree or swamp which they were having trouble locating. He wished to examine this further with the help of the Conservation Commission. Al Bell continued with the item by the Tracking Station who had contacted them regarding their desire to examine the site and abutting properties for unexploded ordnance by walking the land and searching with the aid of metal detectors. He added that they had signed a document with Joseph Redlinger, Real Estate Chief of the US Army Corps of Engineers, agreeing to this and it was understood that the properties would be investigated within a year’s time when the ground was clear of snow cover. The next item concerned setbacks from streams on the site and Al Bell suggested that because they felt a 50’ setback would impact toomany of their lots they proposed a 25’ setback which would create a 50’ swath along the two streams that ran through the site. He noted that they had spoken with NHDES and would be meeting with them again in two week’s time. He noted that the flow calculations derived by Sandford Surveying and Engineering for the streams on site would allow them to properly size the proposed culverts which would be open bottomed to benefit wildlife and address proper erosion control and rip rap methods. The next item regarded Poorly Drained Soils. Al Bell noted that Sandford Surveying and Engineering had review the soils as had Nobis Engineering who had flagged the wetlands and given their opinions on the soils in walking the site approximately ten times and had determined that there was no further examination of soils necessary. He added that runoff calculations and storm mitigation had been done and they were meeting with NHDES again for their input in order to assure that the proper culverts and runoff protection would be in place to prevent erosion. Al Bell stated that the proposed cul-de-sac met all current Town regulations and was not an issue. Regarding the issue of land donation for recreational purposes Al Bell stated that he had mentioned at previous meetings that he had no issue with making such a donation but did not feel there was land suitable on this site for that purpose. He noted that 10.3 acres was set aside for mitigation and it would be possible to adjust that piece of property if the Board was not satisfied with its location. Al Bell stated that they had no issue showing a right-of-way going down to Lot #15/17 (a Bussiere lot) but this was land that was quite steep and swampy and it would be an engineering feat to get a road through that area, therefore, it was unlikely to serve as a future connection point. Al Bell noted that the proposed 10.3 acres of open space complied with the mitigation on Open Space and included uplands and wetlands. The Chairman stated that it was the opinion of several Board members including himself that without an additional connection to Klondike Corner or that general area the density of this proposed subdivision in conjunction with existing and planned development in the area bordered on excessive for Bedford Road and nearby road networks. Al Bell replied that he had spoken with abutting developers, namely, the Bussieres, Lordens and Indian Falls which Ray Shea could elaborate on. Ray Shea explained that they were now looking at the 1 acre +/- of land to be donated by the Bussiere family near Klondike Corner and were doing a preliminary intersection design to straighten out the existing curve. He added that the applicants would like to meet with the Road Committee, if that were appropriate, before the next meeting to discuss whether the area proposed for the intersection’s revision could handle that type of improvement. Ray Shea noted that Al Bell was not at the last meeting with the Board and wanted to clarify to him that the Board was also concerned about being able to exit the proposed subdivision in addition to safe travel at the Klondike Corner intersection. He noted that the applicant was not considering taking on the construction of such a road out to Klondike Corner. Jim Bath noted that they were agreeable to fund a concept plan for the intersection given the Bussiere’s acreage donation and in speaking with the abutting developers had agreed to have Sandford Surveying and Engineering put together a concept of what the road through the Bussiere property would resemble even though the Bussieres had no interest in developing their parcel any time soon. He added that the good news was that most of this conceptual work would be ready to present at the next meeting. The Chairman wished to state for the record that the Board would not consider the proposed subdivision at the density presented without a connection through the Bussiere property as without it the plan could be considered a giant cul-de-sac because all the traffic it generated would exit and enter at the Bedford and McCurdy Road intersection. He noted that two abutting plans were also in process and the Board was not unanimously consenting over them as did not believe that they met the proper criteria either. Jim Bath asked if, given this information, they would be wasting their money in funding the concept plan he spoke of. The Chairman replied that they would be if they had no intention of building the road he alluded to. Jim Bath clarified that he did not own the piece of land that the road being discussed would be built through. The Chairman replied that this was understood. Dave Woodbury noted that access points to and from the western end of the site should not be ignored and that while he was unsure what property abutted the site on the west he knew of a property abutting from the northern end. He added that the applicant may not consider the abutting properties and their future exits to be his problem but theoretically it should be considered. Ray Shea pointed out the proposed connection for the Lorden property and this site as going through Lot #12/93-34. He added that the Lorden piece connected to the Wilson property at a point that he did not see any current restrictions or easements. Dave Woodbury noted that while much of the focus had been on the Bussiere parcel and its possible road connection the Lorden piece fell in the middle of these developments and its eastern and western egresses should be considered. Ray Shea stated that the Lorden piece intended to tie into Susan Drive. The Chairman asked the status of the Lorden plan. Ray Shea replied that it was in the preliminary stages of its State approvals. He noted that representatives of the Lorden family would be attending their upcoming meeting with the State as the State wished to take a proactive role in regard to wetland impacts that might arise. Dave Woodbury asked what main topics the State was focusing on. Ray Shea replied that wetland mitigation and wildlife were other concerns and members of the NHDES Wetlands Department and NH Fish and Game would be present at the meeting. The Chairman noted that both this application and the Lorden property had similar issues. Burr Tupper read from a letter by NHDES dated February 9, 2007, which addressed the Lorden case that he had previously submitted to the Coordinator. He noted that NHDES cited a particular RSA in writing: “Notwithstanding any rules adopted by the commissioner defining minor projects, a series of minor projects undertaken by a single developer or several developers over a period of 5 years or less may, when considered in the aggregate, amount to a major project in the opinion of the department…Based on the DES Wetlands Bureau’s records of the previous 5 years, Wetlands and Non Site Specific Permits (cited at this point in the letter) were obtained by the applicant or occurred on adjacent parcels. Therefore, associated impacts may be considered cumulatively when determining mitigation. Also, the DES Wetlands Bureau is currently reviewing potential mitigation issues regarding possible development of abutting Tax Map/Lot # 15/15”. He noted that the letter then went on to cite a number of issues that needed to be addressed. Burr Tupper added that a meeting that had been scheduled for February 20, 2007, was canceled as NHDES felt more information was needed. Burr Tupper stated that he would attend the meeting rescheduled for March 6, 2007, and had invited the Coordinator to accompany him. Ray Shea wished to noted that discussions regarding the Bussiere and LeBlanc properties had taken place over a year ago and at that time the Board had stated that the next application in that area would be considered in the same manner as the first phase of Indian Falls, therefore, the current tone was not a surprise to the applicant. Burr Tupper noted that this was why he had quoted the section of RSA from the NHDES letter to the Board. Dave Woodbury added that the Coordinator had raised the possibility of regional impacts given this application and abutting developments and asked when its possibility should be considered as these proposed subdivisions were near to the towns of Bedford and Amherst, NH. The Coordinator stated that the Board had been provided with attachments of guidelines for this by SNHPC (Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission) and with that information provided this was up to the Board’s determination. The Chairman thought that these developments could cause such impacts. Don Duhaime felt that in order for this applicant’s subdivision to be approved, a road out to Klondike Corner should be built and its cost shared among the four developers being discussed tonight. He noted that he might not consider the Bussieres as they had already made a substantial land donation but he felt that the remaining developers were resisting. Al Bell disagreed and noted that they had met with the other abutting developers that were willing to share the cost in straightening out the “S” curves along Bedford Road. Don Duhaime replied that this would not fully address the issues. The Chairman stated that the applicant now knew the Board’s sentiments on the matter. Bob Furey noted that if the applications being discussed went forward individually he did not think it likely that a road out to Klondike Corner would be built and this would result in a heavy traffic pattern. He felt that the Town should look at a Traffic Study in conjunction with these applicants. Bob Furey asked which of the applications being discussed were required to do Environmental Studies. Ray Shea replied that LeBlanc and Bussiere were required to do so. Bob Furey asked if these Environmental Studies recognized the habitats of Blandings Turtles and Hognose Snakes that may be on site. Ray Shea replied that he was unsure. Jim Bath thought that Traffic Studies for his application and the upcoming Lorden plan would be good data to have. Burr Tupper thought that a traffic analysis had been presented several meetings prior. Interested party Brandy Mitroff noted that data provided by SNHPC had calculated 3,300 cars per peak day on Bedford Road and 3,700 cars per peak day along NH Route 13 at the location of New Boston Hardware, therefore, Bedford Road was approaching the load of a State Highway. She noted that Bedford Road had serious underlying structural problems. James Nordstrom stated that the area of town under discussion tonight was becoming highly developed and there was concern for potential traffic impacts to Bedford Road and Klondike Corner as a result. He thought that the stipulation of a connection established through the Bussiere property to approve these plans might be questionable and that traffic needed to be reviewed more comprehensively without treating applications for this area individually. James Nordstrom thought that the conclusions from such a Traffic Study would offer more insight. Jim Bath agreed. James Nordstrom continued by stating that Bedford Road appeared to be reaching its traffic capacity and with its current poor road condition and added development this road would continue to have problems. Burr Tupper added that in addition to traffic impacts NHDES and NH Fish and Game were also concerned about environmental impacts as moose, snowshoe hare, bobcat and other threatened species had been noted in the area. He further added that continued development would cause significant impacts and more roads might cut off wildlife corridors. Bob Furey asked if the Hognose Snake had been noted in any of the areas being discussed as he had heard that it was in the southern New Hampshire area. Burr Tupper replied that NH Fish and Game believed there was evidence to support that this species along with the Blandings Turtle resided on land owned by the Tracking Station which abutted the area of discussion and was one of the few areas in New Hampshire where it lived. Bob Furey asked what procedure would follow if this elusive species were spotted. Cyndie Wilson replied that it was not their business to relocate wildlife. She noted that a 22 acre piece of land was between hers and the Tracking Station and that the Tracking Station was still in the midst of studying the preferred habitat of the Hognose Snake which in contrast to past beliefs did not seem to prefer a consistently sandy habitat. Cyndie Wilson stated that she had seen Blandings Turtles of some type in the pond on her property and believed she had seen a Hognose Snake. She added that NH Fish and Game had asked her to be on the lookout for this species which was elusive as were bobcats. Cyndie Wilson surmised that if these animals were on these lots it could be assumed that in following the natural terrain they would be on adjacent lots which included the applicant’s site. The Chairman asked what the solution would be if these species were confirmed on these properties. Burr Tupper replied that significant area should be set aside so that these species were not interfered with and that this should be a responsibility undertaken by the community. Cyndie Wilson noted that in looking at the dark green areas shaded on the Future Land Use map this signified wildlife habitats/corridors coded by SNHPC as being in danger of development. She added that Barry Whitlow, a professor of Biology at St. Anselm’s College had stated to her that the biggest danger to wildlife was roads, therefore she hoped for one road into Lot #15/15 that would exit back out to Klondike Corner. She added that another solution would be to determine areas in Town that were important to maintaining its rural character and then work to get that land under easements. The Chairman clarified that Cyndie Wilson’s solutions involved less density and fewer roads. Cyndie Wilson replied that was correct. The Chairman noted that if the plans proposed 10 acre lots with buffer zones for wildlife at the rear of the lots the road networks required would be minimized. Cyndie Wilson wished to note that Blandings Turtles needed to reach an age between 15 and 18 years old before they could breed and that only 1% of hatchlings matured to adulthood, therefore, if one female Blandings turtle were to die a lot of the species’ continuation would be lost. Jim Bath stated that he had worked in medical field analysis for many years and appreciated Cyndie Wilson’s passion for wildlife which was evident when she spoke, however, he felt that having hard data to further support the challenges she presented was necessary. He asked if recorded sightings of these species existed for the area as he would like to work with the Conservation Commission and know what data was available to reach appropriate solutions. Jim Bath added that they were willing to offer easements and buffers and partner with other abutting landowners, but this must be done in conjunction with data and recorded information not merely opinions. Cyndie Wilson replied that she had pictures of turtles taken at Place Pond which drained into the beaver dam, therefore if such species were in that pond they were also in the brook that it drained to. Jim Bath asked if this information was recorded. Cyndie Wilson replied that it was and the Tracking Station had this information also. She noted that this information and more was likely to be presented at the NHDES meeting on March 6, 2007. Burr Tupper wished to read from a letter by Kim Tuttle from NH Fish and Game dated 11/20/06: “I am concerned with the secondary impacts of the subdivision, especially degradation to wetlands and vernal pools, which provide the major food source for Blanding’s turtle and Eastern hognose snake. Blanding’s turtles feed heavily on amphibian eggs and larvae and the diet of the Eastern hognose snake consists almost entirely of American toads and other frog species”. Burr Tupper stated that he had seen on various site walks, the snowshoe hare which was a known food source for bobcat along with moose tracks. He thought that in light of such wildlife care should be taken in how wetlands were impacted by development. Cyndie Wilson apologized for her negative tone toward the applicant and stated that she should have begun by thanking him for reading her letter and offering the concessions he did. Jim Bath replied that they were looking for solutions and while further adjustments might be called for, hard facts were needed before they could move forward. The Chairman noted that if the Board relied on facts alone then the Coordinator would be the only member necessary and could administer according to statutes. He added that common sense rationalized that a secondary exit out to Klondike Corner was needed and this issue involved not only the applicant but other abutting landowners. The Chairman asked the applicant to consider the difference in response time for emergency vehicles if a secondary access in the Klondike Corner area were available versus not having it and the subdivision being a long cul-de-sac. He recalled that up to this point the Board had aided applicants in the area by approving their plans with the issue of Klondike Corner placed on the back burner but in looking at the density being proposed by this applicant and others in the area the common sense conclusion was that the McCurdy/Bedford Road intersection would be greatly impacted. Jim Bath noted that, as the saying went, common sense was the grandfather of any great adventure. He noted that they would need to consider their finances given the Board’s opinion of this issue. Jim Bath added that in opting to show the entire build-out picture for themselves and other landowners on their plan they felt that offering too much information had brought them to a stalemate. The Chairman replied that the Board asked for a completed roadway connection in order to approve this plan because they were confident that they would end up at this juncture. He added that if the Board always relied on their assumptions they could be way off the mark, therefore, they tried to gather as much information as possible and that was how they arrived at this point with the applicant. Jim Bath stated that previous applicants in the same area of Town had gotten their plans successfully approved and had fulfilled all Board requirements but this had not involved the burden now being placed on him which was to construct a connector road on property that he did not own. He wondered if a solution would be to bring the developers involved together with the Town to build this road. The Chairman replied that while this could be entertained he did not think the Town would want to pay for the road, therefore, that avenue might not be worth the applicant’s time. Jim Bath asked the Chairman if he had faith in types of data. The Chairman responded that he did not and that his taxes increased each year. Jim Bath replied that he felt schools drove all budgets in their respective towns. He added that he was trying to figure out what kind of hope they had for this application. Dave Woodbury asked if a continuation of Meadow Road as it approached Klondike Corner at Chestnut Hill was on private property or ran through the Tracking Station’s land. Ray Shea replied that to his knowledge this continuation was still a Town road. He noted that Mr. Halvatzes of Connie’s Septic owned a triangular portion of land along the road a ways up from that point but that to confirm the correct information he would need to look at tax maps. Ray Shea further noted that there were major wetlands in that area. Dave Woodbury stated that he would be interested to know for certain that that portion of Meadow Road was off limits. Ray Shea thought that the tax map showed the road as Class VI straight through. Brandy Mitroff thought that this applicant had the misfortune of timing where previous developers like Mitch Larochelle had successfully gotten their subdivisions approved but overtones by the Board of not going any further with plans until a road to Klondike Corner was built had existed for 2 or 3 years. She recalled a map she had put in the New Boston Bulletin detailing the impacts perceived years ago when this issue arose. Ray Shea stated that in his recollection ongoing discussions over the years that had involved the LeBlanc, Bussiere and One Chestnut Hill development potentials were not going to have their future approvals contingent on a road being constructed out to Klondike Corner. He noted that while constructing road connections from Indian Falls to Susan Drive had been required he would not have been presenting these plans in different formats over time to the Board if the former scenario was the case. The Coordinator clarified that the Board had required that a note be added to the Indian Falls plan that there would be no further subdivision allowed from that site until Indian Falls Road connected with Susan Drive, not Klondike Corner. The Chairman noted that land had been provided out to the Bussiere property so that at a future date a connection to Klondike Corner could be proposed. Stu Lewin noted that he drove along Bedford Road quite often and that it was not unusual to see 5 to 7 cars backed up at the Klondike Corner intersection waiting to turn onto Bedford Road. He noted that he understood the applicant’s feeling of coming “late to the game” but this was the point of planning. Stu Lewin further noted that he felt the Board should be looking at the issues being discussed on a comprehensive scale which was why he supported having developers show the entire area of land around their sites in order to bring potential issues to the surface. The Chairman stated that the applicant now had the Board’s opinion and knew what was required to go further in the process with their plan. Ray Shea clarified that this plan was now at the end of its preliminary phase. The Chairman replied that was correct. LACHANCE, CAROL S. & ALBERT J. Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/9 Lots Location: NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Lull Road & Middle Branch Roads Tax Map/Lot # 2/112-2 Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS, Jack Bielagus, Esq., and the applicants Carol and Albert LaChance. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that at the last meeting Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, had presented plans for the design of improvements to Lull Road. He added that copies of this design had been forwarded to the Board and the Road Agent but they were yet to hear back from the Road Agent with his comments, therefore they assumed he had no issues. The Coordinator added that the Board had not heard from the Road Agent on this matter either. From the audience Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering, stated that Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, had faxed a sketch of the proposed design to the Road Agent and followed up with him by phone. He added that the Road Agent found the design acceptable as the hammerhead was placed down beyond the common drive but he wanted 50’ of separation beyond the third proposed driveway, therefore, had a conversation with Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, regarding the sketch. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that they were awaiting an amended State Subdivision Approval from NHDES and had spoken with Aaron Wexler who stated that the approval was completed and would be forthcoming by mail. The Chairman stated that the only remaining issue had been the driveway design to Lot #2/112-2-8. Ray Shea stated that sketch had been submitted per conversations with the Road Agent. The Chairman asked if the driveway to Lot #2/112-2-8 was now where it should be. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it was and that this was a more direct location which although close to wetlands had good topography. The Chairman agreed that the placement looked more sensible. He then asked if a driveway could be built through the frontage on the first driveway, Lot #2/112-2-6. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that this could be done and that ecologically he preferred to see a long common driveway there with branches off it but understood the Board’s policy regarding that type of design. Dave Woodbury stated that the geography of the design appeared to be ok. He clarified that some legal language to the plan needed discussion. Jack Bielagus, Esq., stated that one modification was needed to the legal documents for the plan for the common driveways. He explained that he had prepared a Declaration of four Easements in one document for two common driveways: one off Lull Road and one off NH Route 77; a slope and drainage easement; and the hammerhead turnaround easement. He further noted that the Open Space lot would have a conservation easement under RSA 477:45-47. He added that he had revised the declaration to address the common area but did not want to contact Town Counsel until he had spoken with the Board in case they had suggestions or added things to incorporate. The Chairman asked what the note on the plan that referenced the Conservation Commission addressed. Albert LaChance replied that the Conservation Commission had agreed to receive and manage the 28 acre Open Space lot. The Chairman asked if the Conservation Commission would own this lot. Jack Bielagus, Esq., replied that this lot would be under easement and explained that each of the 8 lots would have a one-eighth interest in the common area with a blanket conservation easement. He noted that this was outlined in the declaration also. Bob Todd, LLS, asked if a homeowners association was considered for the subdivision to care for the common land. Jack Bielagus, Esq., replied that it was originally but it made more sense to address it with a conservation easement and be managed by the Conservation Commission. The Coordinator noted that when the application was accepted as complete at a prior hearing the original declaration of covenants had been forwarded to Town Counsel for review and the Planning Department had just received the documents back. She asked that Jack Bielagus, Esq., review the comments from Town Counsel and then send everything back to the Board including the revisions. The Board gave consensus to release a copy of Town Counsel’s letter to the applicant. Jack Bielagus, Esq., replied that he would make the minor modifications necessary. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that he would review the plan’s statistics also. Don Duhaime asked if the Town was getting an easement from the applicant along Lull Road for future widening. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that he understood the concurrence of the Board to be that the applicant’s property line would be shown on the plans to create a 50’ right-of-way and this was shown as a dedication on the plan. The Chairman stated that he thought the Town would have ownership. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the applicant only had the rights to what was provided and because the road was Class VI it was actually only an easement all the way from NH Route 77 anyway. The Chairman asked what the case would be if the road needed to be improved in the future. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that it would still be an easement and to have a crescent shaped portion of Town owned land seemed unnecessary. Bob Furey asked the applicant his thoughts on phasing. Albert LaChance replied that he did not consider himself a developer and was hoping to find someone that could do an aesthetic job with the site and honor the land. He noted that several parties had come forward and shown interest but he did not feel the market was acceptable right now to make any commitments. Bob Furey asked what Albert LaChance would do if the market turned around. Albert LaChance replied that he would like to see one subdivision cluster constructed at a time so that the ecosystem of the site was not impacted all at once. He noted that the parties interested in developing the land were in agreement with his sentiments. Bob Todd, LLS, asked Albert LaChance if he was still interested in placing an easement on the triangular section of land owned on his own lot, #2/112-1, in order to ensure contiguity along the buffer on the drainage swale that ran north along Middle Branch Road and the Middle Branch of the Piscataquog River. Albert LaChance replied that such an easement had been his assumption and he was happy to do so. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that 1.8 acres should then be added to the list of easements to be prepared. Dave Woodbury noted that the Board owed the applicant a decision this evening, however, there were still outstanding issues such as legal documents and easements that needed to be reviewed. The Chairman added that the applicant was still awaiting the amended State Subdivision Approval also. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that this paperwork would be received within a week’s time. The Chairman stated that in light of these items one last meeting would be required which should be brief. Jack Bielagus, Esq., noted that one last issue involved a new Town ordinance that dealt with required bonding being set aside for subsurface disturbance. He asked that the Board consider not requiring this bond from the applicant until construction of the driveways was started or until a Building Permit was applied for as it could be 2 to 10 years before work began and it would be difficult for the applicant to have a large sum held for the Town for that time period. Jack Bielagus, Esq., added that the Town could only hold the bond for 6 years and asked if a waiver could be considered as this was not a development scenario. The Coordinator noted that the suggested language for such consideration was a Miscellaneous Business item on this evening’s agenda. The Chairman stated that the Board’s deadline for action needed an extension. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the applicant was willing to extend the deadline through to the next scheduled hearing. Albert LaChance asked if the next scheduled meeting would come before or after Town Meeting as he hoped that would not cause any issues with his application. The Chairman replied that this could not happen as his application had already been accepted as complete. Dave Woodbury MOVED to extend the Board’s deadline for action to March 27, 2007, and adjourn the application of Albert J. and Carol S. LaChance, Major Subdivision, 9 Lots, Location: NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road, Lull Road and Middle Branch Road, Tax Map/Lot # 2/112-2, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to March 27, 2007, at 9:45 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously. FRAGOS, GEORGE AND REBECCA ANN Submission of Application/Public Hearing Minor Subdivision/NRSPR/Condominium Location: 23 Styles Road Tax Map/Lot # 3/52-32 Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Bob Todd, LLS, and the applicants George and Rebecca Ann Fragos. No abutters or interested parties were present. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicants had received State Subdivision Approval. He explained that the site was a 3.05 acre lot with 260.74’ of frontage on Riverdale Road, however, due to Steep Slopes and critical areas the primary access traveled over a 50’ strip on Styles Road. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the existing duplex had been constructed in 2002 and the applicants resided in Unit A and rented to a tenant in Unit B. He added that they proposed to convert the duplex to a condominium. Bob Todd, LLS, explained that the interior was comprised of three levels; an unfinished basement, first and second floor with an area of 1,771 s.f. for each unit. He added that the limited common areas totaled 5,892 s.f. for Unit A and 6,800 s.f. for Unit B while the common area was 2.73 acres. Bob Todd, LLS stated that a common septic system served both units and the driveway to the proposed condominium was common with branches off it to two parking spaces for each unit. He noted a turn-around area in the driveway which allowed a vehicle to drive in, turn around and exit without interference. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that Unit A had an accessory building on site and there was also a small shed for Unit B. He further noted that each unit had a deck of equal size, existing exterior lighting on the corners of the building, over each entry door and rear sliding door. Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the Lot was 525’ west of an existing fire cistern located on the southern side of Styles Road. Bob Todd, LLS, noted a peculiarity with the plan in that 2 district lines ran through the lot with the northern side being in a Commercial Zone and the southern side Residential-Agricultural (“R-A”). The Coordinator noted that this issue had been researched that day following a question from Michele Brown, Planning Assistant, and the Zoning had been adjusted by petition with the whole parcel now being in the “R-A” District, therefore, the boundary ran with the lot lines. Bob Todd, LLS, noted that there had been three lot line adjustments with this property over the last 10 years. Bob Furey noted that the applicant had requested a waiver to the requirement of Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. The Board had no issues with these waiver requests. Dave Woodbury MOVED to grant the waivers requested in Bob Todd, LLS’s memo of 1/15/07 for 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 George and Rebecca Ann Fragos, Minor Subdivision, NRSPR/ Condominium, Location: 23 Styles Road, Tax Map/Lot # 3/52-32, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously. The Chairman asked if a site walk was necessary. The Board determined that it was not as this was an existing structure. The Chairman asked the length of the driveway. George Fragos replied that it was 660’. Bob Todd, LLS, checked the plan and confirmed the same measurement. The Chairman asked if the driveway had been built to any specifications at the time it was constructed. Bob Todd, LLS, replied that the driveway was well constructed but could not say with certainty if it met all current Driveway Regulations. He added that it was flat, had no drainage problems, and was paved 50’ in from the edge of Styles Road. The Chairman did not see any issues with the application. Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the Condex Site Plan, Land of Rebecca Ann Fragos and George Fragos, III, Tax Map/Lot #3/52-32, Styles and Riverdale Roads 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 March 31, 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. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27, 2007 1. Approval of minutes of January 23, 2007, with or without changes, distributed at the February 13, 2007, meeting. (No Copies) James Nordstrom MOVED to approve the minutes of January 23, 2007, as written. Bob Furey seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously. 2. Drive by inspection for Waldorf Estates, Phase III, Foxberry Drive, compliance hearing to be held March 27, 2007. The Coordinator explained that the Road Agent was now comfortable with what had been the two outstanding issues: the driveway to be blocked off properly and the erosion occurring at the other driveway. She asked that the Board view these driveways before their scheduled compliance hearing on March 27, 2007. Dave Woodbury stated that he had driven by these driveways this evening before the meeting and was not satisfied. He noted that there was a pile of sand at the base of the driveway that had required blocking and he did not think this served as ample protection if a vehicle went off the road. The Coordinator noted that to her knowledge boulders had been placed for blockage. She wondered if some other construction was taking place in this location. Dave Woodbury replied that he had not seen the boulders but if they were smaller in size they might be snow covered. The Coordinator asked that all Board view the driveways before the next meeting. 3. Discussion with Kenneth R. Barss, Jr., re: 501 Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot # 14/90, Wetlands Ordinance. (Ordinance copy attached) Because Mr. Barss was expected to attend the meeting later on the Board determined that they would address the above noted item when he was present. 4. A copy of a memorandum dated February 23, 2007, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Planning Board Members, re: Bedford Road Traffic Study, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion. Bob Furey asked if there was Town funding available to begin a comprehensive traffic study. Dave Woodbury replied that this had not been budgeted for. He asked what the cost would be. The Coordinator recalled that during a previous discussion James Nordstrom and Don Duhaime had approximated the cost at $25K to $35K. Don Duhaime asked if SNHPC had done similar traffic studies for the Town and may have the information sought. James Nordstrom replied that they had done some traffic counts in the proximity of the McCurdy Road intersection. Don Duhaime noted that it was 1.75 miles from Indian Falls Road to Chestnut Hill Road and because impending development in the Indian Falls area would create another intersection bearing additional traffic the Town should front the funds to get a traffic study done. He noted that there had already been numerous accidents along dangerous curves along Bedford Road and this would only worsen with added traffic from new subdivisions. The Chairman wondered if further subdivision applications for the area should be placed on hold, with the exception of subdivision applications currently before the Board, until the Town was able to appropriate the funding for a traffic study unless the developers wished to supply the funding. James Nordstrom noted that Town Counsel had suggested that a meeting with the Road Agent and the Road Committee could provide more information on this issue. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the Board could invite those parties to speak at a Planning Board meeting. The Coordinator replied that given the subject and the timeliness regarding pending applications, a separate meeting might be scheduled. James Nordstrom asked if it would be considered unreasonable to extend such an invitation. The Coordinator replied that this was not at all unreasonable. Don Duhaime thought that a specific meeting dealing with road issues was warranted. The Chairman thought that the Board should forward relevant letters to the Road Agent and/or Road Committee in advance of such a meeting so that they knew what topics should be discussed. Don Duhaime asked if the Selectmen should also attend such a meeting. Dave Woodbury thought this would be appropriate. Don Duhaime added that SNHPC could be asked to do a proposal for a traffic study. Dave Woodbury suggested that the Coordinator check with the Town Administrator to see if a meeting could be scheduled on a Monday evening which was a Selectmen meeting night. 5. A copy of a letter received February 23, 2007, from Kevin P. Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Christian Farm Estates, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion. Dave Woodbury thought that the tone of the above noted letter seemed to convey that Mr. Leonard had a lack of budgeting experience. He thought that Northpoint should be educated on the issue they were undertaking and not at the client’s expense. Dave Woodbury added that the calculations for the cistern monitoring estimate seemed suspicious. The Chairman noted that in 2004 the cistern monitoring/inspection estimates were revised but Northpoint may have been using the estimates for concrete cisterns. The Coordinator explained that cistern inspection was listed at a flat rate in the Subdivision Regulations. The Chairman noted that the estimate for monitoring fiberglass cisterns, such as the client’s, was a dramatically different cost as it did not entail concrete testing or curing of concrete. James Nordstrom added that it was a component of weight only. The Chairman asked if the Board could review a prior Town Engineer’s (Dufresne-Henry, Inc.) billing for fiberglass cisterns inspection as a comparison. The Coordinator replied that it was the Regulations that were at fault in providing only a flat rate, for any kind of cistern, therefore, without a change to the Regulations, a waiver was the only option. The Chairman asked if there was an option to compare the billing estimate of a prior Town Engineer in order to assist Northpoint in their calculation. Stu Lewin thought this might appear as though the Town did not know what it was doing when it came to estimates. He asked if there was a reason why the Regulations called for a flat fee instead of inspection by an hourly rate. The Chairman was unsure. The Coordinator replied that the flat rate was derived from cost averaging for such inspections so that as soon as the escrow was provided the process could get underway. James Nordstrom clarified that this had been an attempt to streamline the process. Bob Furey noted that there were multiple inspections required for fiberglass cisterns also, therefore, the estimate may not be too far off. The Coordinator explained that the monitoring estimate calculated out to 50 hours because of the flat fee in the Regulations and rather than dividing out the hours from that fee Mr. Leonard of Northpoint should have just put the flat fee in. The Chairman thought that unloading, pressure testing and setting a fiberglass cistern would take place all on the same day. Don Duhaime replied that may not be the case. Bob Furey added that this was because different contractors were responsible for different tasks. The Chairman stated that even without the ambiguity of the cistern monitoring estimate the entire estimate was still off by approximately 28K according to the client, Douglas Hill. He noted that this was the first estimate done by Northpoint for the Town. James Nordstrom asked the Coordinator what the differential was for estimates done for the Town in the last five years and by what percentage they were off. The Coordinator replied that the ending billing exceeded its estimate on almost every one. She recalled 2 estimates that were calculated at $40K that came in at $55K or $60K. James Nordstrom stated that, historically, estimates had come in on the low end and the final billing was considerably higher, which was important to note. Don Duhaime thought that the estimate in question was a reasonable number and was not too high. James Nordstrom added that while he had initially thought that a $60K estimate for a 24 lot subdivision seemed high its breakdown was realistic. The Chairman asked the meaning of a “Geotech” review as listed on the estimate’s itemization. James Nordstrom explained that specifications needed to be met at certain intervals when a road was at subgrade such as review of its select materials and compaction tests. He noted that these tests were performed by “Geotech” people. The Chairman asked if this itemization applied to the client’s subdivision. James Nordstrom replied that it did and added that the client also proposed substantial retaining walls which would also require testing. Stu Lewin noted that the $10.5K equaled 150 hours of inspection for that item. James Nordstrom explained that the $10.5K covered JGI’s cost which was Northpoint’s subcontractor. Bob Furey noted that the retaining walls for this project were not yet designed. Stu Lewin thought that 150 hours did not seem enough for the review of the retaining walls. Bob Furey explained that this was for the review of their design, not in the field. The Chairman felt the estimate was in line. Bob Furey noted that he expected to see poured concrete for the retaining walls proposed, not a ready-made wall. The Board’s consensus was that they supported the estimate amount provided by Northpoint. Stu Lewin asked if the Board could be supplied with the monitoring hours as they were logged. The Chairman replied that was done. 6. A copy of an article from January/February 2007, Environmental News, titled Shoreland Act Studied, Changes to be debated in 2007 legislative session, was distributed for the Board’s information. 7. Daily road inspection reports dated, September 28, October 5, 13, & 17, 2006, from Stantec, re: Highland Hills, were distributed for the Board’s information. 8. Daily road inspection reports dated, October 16, 2006, from Stantec, re: Waldorf Estates, were distributed for the Board’s information. ELIZABETH DEROETTH 1992 TRUST Submission of Application/Public Hearing Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Location: 75 Hooper Hill Road Tax Map/Lot # 11/12-1 & 11/13 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 applicant. No abutters or interested parties were present. Ray Shea explained that this proposal was a lot line adjustment between two properties owned by the Elizabeth DeRoetth 1992 Trust. He noted that the property on the east, Tax Map/Lot #11/13, was the applicant’s part time residence (other residence was Boston, Mass.) and totaled 16 acres. Ray Shea added that the other property, Tax Map/Lot #11/12-1, totaled 15.8 acres and had no existing structures with the exception of an old foundation. He explained that the proposal involved creating a 5 acre lot in the southwest corner and attaching the remaining acreage to the parent lot #11/13, resulting in a 27 acre lot and a 5 acre lot. Ray Shea recalled that two years prior the parent lot totaled 15 acres and a 3 acre lot corner. He added that the applicant chose to flip the 3 acre lot with the existing residence because a renter wished to buy the house, therefore, they created a vacant 15 acre lot as they did not want to sell the house with that much land attached to it. Ray Shea summarized that now an abutter wished to purchase a small piece of land which was why he was creating a 5 acre lot. He noted that Mr. DeRoetth owned many properties in Town with conservation easements on most of them and also allowed people to hay his land. Ray Shea added that a new lot was not being created and that the proposal began and ended with 2 lots. He asked that a waiver be considered to the requirement of a field survey for lot #11/13 as the plan was prepared from GPS surveys and record data. Ray Shea summarized that the applicant sought to keep the fields with the parent lot and sell off a 5 acre lot. He noted that the existing driveway to what would become the 5 acre lot had been permitted in 1996 when it was created as a 3 acre lot. James Nordstrom asked if the Wetlands Permit was granted in 1996 and executed. Ray Shea replied that it was and showed the 1996 plan to the Board. He explained that the driveway was permitted at the time of the first lot line adjustment. James Nordstrom clarified that there would be no access to the rear of the parcel. Ray Shea replied that was correct and while it had been discussed, the applicant did not want to go through another Dredge and Fill, Wetland Crossing and Driveway Permit process. Dave Woodbury MOVED to grant the waivers requested in Ray Shea’s letter of 2/12/07 for the requirement of the Soils Map and Traffic Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously. Dave Woodbury MOVED to accept the application of Elizabeth DeRoetth 1992 Trust, Major Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Location : 75 Hooper Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot # 11/12-1 & 11/13, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously. The Board determined that a site walk was not necessary. Ray Shea noted that a site walk was held at the time of the last Driveway Permit. James Nordstrom asked where Test Pit #1 was on the plan. Ray Shea replied that it was done previously for the house lot and that he had substituted the same test pit log without removing that test pit. Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve the Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Plan for the Elizabeth DeRoetth 1992 Trust by Peter DeRoetth, Trustee, Hooper Hill Road, such that Tax Map/Lot #11/12-1 will be reduced from 15.816 acres to 5 acres and Tax Map/Lot #11/13 will be increased from 16.37 acres +/- to 27.18 acres +/-, subject to: CONDITIONS PRECEDENT: 1. Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing; 2. Submission of the mylar for recording at the HCRD. 3. Payment of any outstanding fees including the cost of recording the mylar at the HCRD. The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be April 1, 2007, confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval. James Nordstrom seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously. Work Session for Planning Board re: future planning. The Chairman stated that this discussion was a continuation from the last meeting. He asked the Coordinator where the Board had left off. The Coordinator replied that at the last discussion the Board had partially addressed Recreation and she would invite representatives from Recreation at a discussion to be held at the April 10, 2007, meeting as the agenda for the March 27, 2007, meeting was full. She added that in speaking with Jack Munn, SNHPC, there was enough money remaining from the $15K voted in the prior year for them to be able to help with comprehensive redistricting proposals from the Master Plan and possibly a conservation groundwater resource update which would be two very good and sizeable projects to address. She noted that following those items the Board could choose to work on the next listings recommended by the Master Plan or upgrade Subdivision/Site Plan Regulations. The Chairman stated that regarding Future Planning and the plausibility of creating a road out to Klondike Corner (which would involve a right turn onto Bedford Road that would take you up to Klondike Corner) this would be a dramatic improvement over the McCurdy/Bedford Road intersection as that was on a curve and it was difficult to see cars approaching from Town and going right onto McCurdy Road which caused congestion for cars coming in the opposite direction and turning left onto McCurdy Road. In contrast and support of a secondary access out to Klondike Corner the Chairman noted that cars rarely exited Bedford Road at its current intersection and turned right onto Chestnut Hill Road. Stu Lewin asked for clarification. The Chairman explained that his point focused on the fact that based on locating the secondary road where he thought it should go most of the traffic entering it would be doing so to access the new subdivision and would not encounter much resistance from cars traveling from Chestnut Hill Road toward New Boston versus the McCurdy/Bedford Road intersection scenario. Don Duhaime noted that based on the secondary road’s location as it exited there could be back-ups on Chestnut Hill Road when people were returning home from work in the evening. The Chairman did not think so because from what he had witnessed he felt that most of the traffic reentering would be come from the direction of New Boston Road (from Bedford, NH). Don Duhaime stated that this may be the case and having the secondary road would alleviate traveling along the 1.75 miles between Klondike Corner and McCurdy Road to access the proposed new development area. The Chairman noted that a secondary road’s construction would need to be balanced with attention to wildlife impacts, however, driver safety was at the peak of importance along with keeping densities in check. He noted that not every 2 acres of land in the area of discussion was buildable. Don Duhaime agreed and added that on a recent site walk of the area he found the beginning portion to be quite steep. He thought that locating any areas for recreational use on this site would be difficult as Al Bell had stated. Don Duhaime noted that construction monitoring would be critical if this area was developed. He did, however, recall a flat section of land at the end of Susan Road that might be appropriate for recreation or the parcel that connected with the Lorden piece. The Chairman thought that once the Board met with representatives from the Recreation Department they would have a better feel for what their desires were regarding recreational areas in the Town. He stressed that, as Don Duhaime had pointed out, just because a developer stated that their land was not suitable for land donation towards recreational use did not mean that was the case. Don Duhaime noted that he did agree with Al Bell’s point that his land was inappropriate for such use but there was potential at the Susan Road cul-de-sac. James Nordstrom agreed that a pocket park versus a big ball park might work well in that area. Don Duhaime concurred and thought it would be a good midpoint for something quaint. Bob Furey thought that was a good suggestion. The Chairman asked where the Board should head in their planning scope for this or should they wait to hear from Recreation. James Nordstrom thought Recreation’s input was needed as maintenance responsibilities would be a factor. He stated that he knew of instances where land was deeded to a towns for recreational purposes and was never maintained, becoming subject to graffiti, etc., therefore, it was important to know how maintenance would be handled. The Chairman stated that when he thought about future planning he considered challenging issues for the Town that should be corrected before they got out of hand, for example, the concerns over construction on Steep Slopes and on wetlands which he felt the Board had aptly addressed and reconciled. He asked what other subjects besides recreation needed to be addressed such as a weak area in an ordinance. James Nordstrom thought that a comprehensive look at Site Plan and Subdivision Regulations would not be out of line as there had been recent issues over language in these Regulations because they were out of date or interpreted differently by the Board. He noted that while the Board had reviewed bits and pieces of the Regulations they had not had a comprehensive review. James Nordstrom understood that this would be a substantial task. The Chairman agreed by noted that these Regulations were the tool most used by the Board and should be kept the sharpest. James Nordstrom adding that, unlike the Zoning Regulations, the Board had the ability to do more with the Site Plan/Subdivision Regulations. Don Duhaime thought that the minimum lot size for building could be increased to 5 acres to attempt to better control areas that the Conservation Commission was concerned over. James Nordstrom replied that they could but changes such as that were dictated by Zoning. The Coordinator suggested a top down approach where tweaking the Subdivision Regulations was a good idea, however, if the Board had concerns about density in subdivisions that was related to Zoning so the lot sizing that was proposed with the District changes from the Master Plan such as the multi-family zone (a proposed performance Zoning overlay for the Town) and the Residential-Agricultural/Open Space District which may be the opportunity to change lot sizing could present other issues where larger lots created a sprawl type of development that would require more roads to connect those homes. She noted that the Board may want to push for the Open Space subdivisions that clustered neighborhoods and created more common land but these topics needed to be addressed now for next year because in 2006 items were addressed too late in the year and the push was on to get things addressed for the ballot vote. The Coordinator explained that using the Master Plan as a guideline the first focus was Zoning and once that was addressed the Board would be able to comfortably move into the other Regulations or these topics could be addressed concurrently by using sub-committees and/or SNHPC. The Chairman asked when changes proposed by the Board to amendments needed to be posted as he wished to prevent the scenario that had occurred with Steep Slopes and the Wetland Ordinance. He thought the deadline for posting needed to be moved back far enough so that the Board had time to read and understand the language proposed and who it affected. The Chairman added that before subcommittees were assigned to a task the issues needed to be pinpointed of what needed to be fixed and they needed to know how proposals would rectify things so that the Board was assured of an ordinance that made sense and was not stone-walled half way through the process of what they thought was a refined amendment. James Nordstrom thought that the Planning Board and Planning Department could start working on amendments to Zoning for next year now. The Chairman agreed and noted that as a Board if they did not get the work done in time for next year’s ballot vote they should not be deterred and keep working at it until it was completed. He noted that the Board had thought that the proposed Wetlands ordinance needed more work but the subcommittee became upset when they thought that the proposal would not get to the 2007 ballot in time and suddenly there was a petition for signing at Dodge’s Store. The Chairman added that if the Board had had more time to read through the proposal they would have had a more informed and fine tuned starting point to begin discussions from. Don Duhaime suggested that to do that going forward the number of agenda items at Board meetings should be restricted so that there was ample time for these reviews. He suggested that these discussions could take place at the first hour of a meeting from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. followed by only 3 or 4 hearings and other hearings would have to be scheduled another week. The Coordinator noted that this discussion was related to Miscellaneous Business item #13. She felt that Don Duhaime’s suggestion was not doable due to the amount of work coming at the Board and the deadlines they had to work with legally. The Coordinator added that when the calendar had weeks of missing meetings due to things like Town Meeting, etc., the result was what was happening on the March 27, 2007, meeting where Board officers needed to be elected at 6:45 p.m. and hearings went until 9:45 p.m., hence there would be no time at that meeting for a future planning discussion. She further added that the next meeting after that should be able to schedule a discussion at 7:00 p.m. and the first hearing at 7:30 p.m. The Coordinator clarified that she wished to know if the Board would prefer to have a separate meeting night to discuss future planning because given the number of hearings the Board had on a regular basis it would be challenging to work this in on a consistent basis. The Chairman noted that this evening the Board had heard hearings where all the applicants had been prepared and organized. The Coordinator noted that the hearings this evening involved two minor lot line adjustments, an applicant that had been before the Board 7 times and a work session that reached a stalemate. The Chairman stated that the Board needed to resolve the issues of applicants needing to return for hearings so many times. Don Duhaime thought that there would always be outliers that had this problem. The Chairman felt that such applicants were the ones looking for exceptions to requirements and what they could get away with. He thought that if such applicants knew they could only get 2 meetings scheduled before their statutory time ran out then they might refrain from such behavior. The Chairman noted that applicants needed to become more aware that their plans could be denied. He thought applications should not be submitted until they were more complete, for example, not submitting until they had State Subdivision Approval. Don Duhaime offered that applications could be prohibited from the agenda until they were complete. The Coordinator replied that this was not possible as it was the Board’s determination and no one else’s to deem an application complete. She noted that this was not the issue and the real problem was getting the issues on the table for an application addressed sooner in the hearing time before an adjournment became necessary and certain issues had not even been discussed. The Coordinator further noted that when an adjournment became necessary due to time factors of a long hearing the applicant needed to be prepared to discuss the remaining items at the next meeting. Don Duhaime asked if the Board could keep certain parties in the audience from raising the topics of recreational land and conservation which added more time to many hearings. The Coordinator replied that the Board had the discretion to cut off conversation due to redundancy but still needed to follow the Rules of Procedure. The Chairman noted that when certain parties in the audience raised the same issues over and over it seemed to be perceived by other audience members as important to the conversation. He asked the Coordinator what she perceived as useless conversation at meetings. The Coordinator replied that she thought that, in part, recreation topics, some conservation discussion, letting abutters get ahead of the applicant. She thought that the meetings should be opened by the Board with only a brief presentation allowed by the presenter at the beginning and immediately get into questions so that issues were addressed in a more timely manner. The Coordinator thought that a lot of the back and forth conversation between applicants and abutters should be cut off because things moved more quickly when the discussion ran between the applicant and the Board. The Chairman felt that these practices had been exercised at the last two meetings. The Coordinator thought this was partly true. She added that conversations during hearings about unrelated experiences also lengthened the meeting time. Stu Lewin thought that presenters who submitted items to the Board in writing should be discouraged from reading the entire text and offer brief summaries. James Nordstrom agreed that redundancy should be avoided. The Coordinator asked if the Planning Board liked the idea of redistricting while considering Subdivision and Site Plan Regulations. The Chairman asked the Coordinator to clarify redistricting. The Coordinator explained that redistricting involved what the Master Plan committee came up with ideas for the “R-A”, “R-1”, Commercial, Industrial, etc., districts and proposing overlay districts like scenic corridor, town center, multi-family, residential-agricultural/open space, etc., and that it would change Zoning concepts. James Nordstrom asked if the intent was to re-zone or just to create overlays. The Coordinator replied that it was partly both. The Chairman replied that he was unsure that he liked that idea as he would not want to have his property suddenly re-zoned to a multi-family district. The Coordinator noted that multi-family would be an overlay district which could only be used if a lot met certain performance criteria. She added that with the Master Plan completed if the Board let these proposals go unaddressed then they were not doing what should be their next task in the process and many Towns people worked hard on the Master Plan. The Coordinator likened this a smaller scale of what happened in 1990 where the Town went from one district of Residential-Agricultural and needing a special exception for any other use to actually having Districts such as Commercial, Industrial, R-A and R-1 for the first time. She stated that now they were looking at refining even further what was done in the 1990’s regarding Districts. The Coordinator noted that the Board did not need to make any decisions on this tonight and could think about it and address it at the next meeting at the end of March, 2007. The Chairman asked who decided who would get what District. The Coordinator replied that the Board would use the Master Plan Committee’s proposals and put it into a proposed ordinance that would be put to a vote by the Town. The Chairman replied that he was against doing that. James Nordstrom thought that this did not seem like a big change for base Zoning but dealt mainly with the overlays. Bob Furey asked what defined an overlay district. The Coordinator replied that underlying Zoning stayed in effect with the overlay on top of it and whatever District was stricter, governed. The Chairman asked what would overlay a Commercial District. The Coordinator replied that there may not be an overlay to Commercial and this would depend on what the Board proposed followed by what the Town voted. James Nordstrom offered that the Wetlands Conservation District could be applied to any of the current Zones along with Steep Slopes and generally, overlay districts had stricter development criteria than their base Zoning. The Chairman asked where the need was for overlays. The Coordinator replied that part of the need addressed density concerns and part addressed the need for some economic development in the Town by attracting commercial ventures. She noted that all the items in each chapter of the Master Plan gave the background and the basis for why these districts were suggested. The Chairman recalled that original Zoning came about in New Boston based on what any landowner wanted. The Coordinator replied that this was not exactly the case and explained that original Zoning came about in 1973 when the State had had an Act that towns could adopt and then New Boston adopted this but it was voted out and came back to the vote in 1977. She added that over the years the Town wrote their own Zoning instead of using the State’s. The Coordinator stated that the Town was originally “R-A” with anything else requiring a special exception and in 1990 a comprehensive rezoning was done for the entire Town and Districts were proposed. She noted that the Planning Board at the time spent many hours and very long meetings making the Zoning map and Townspeople could apply to the Board for certain rezonings which was then discussed by the Board with some allowed and some not allowed. The Chairman thought that no one had been denied their request for a rezoning as he recalled. The Coordinator disagreed and stated that she could provide the Chairman with those Minutes. Dave Woodbury asked what the question to be decided this evening entailed. The Coordinator replied that the question was whether the Board wished to use the remainder of the $15K voted in last year for SNHPC to do what the Master Plan suggested or if they wished to use the money some other way. The Chairman thought they could use the money for a comprehensive traffic study. The Coordinator did not think they could because the Warrant Article may have been written in such a way that the money could only be used for Regulations and Ordinances based on the Master Plan although she would need to check the language. James Nordstrom agreed that the allocation of the funds was specific to certain things. The Chairman thought the Board could think about it. The Coordinator noted that this topic would be a Miscellaneous Business item at the next meeting and Miscellaneous Business was not scheduled to start until 10:00 p.m. but the discussion needed to occur at that meeting. 3. Discussion with Kenneth R. Barss, Jr., re: 501 Mont Vernon Road, Tax Map/Lot # 14/90, Wetlands Ordinance. (Ordinance copy attached) Ken Barss was present for this item. He explained that he had purchased his site years ago with the intent to construct a duplex on the far side of an existing brook and had worked with NHDES for 6 six as they wanted parts of the property cleaned up in order that he could move forward. Ken Barss stated that he had since come in and spoken with Ed Hunter, Building Inspector, who said that there were no issues with the site . He noted that he had considered adding onto an existing mobile home on site that sat 12’ from the brook but thought better of it as this could be an issue for him in the future. Instead, he explained that he purchased a double wide trailer and placed it on the site for his daughter and her growing family who rented it from him. Ken Barss explained that the home was already on site and had to be moved prior to obtaining the Building Permit. He added that he had also been waiting for a septic design from Harry Murray. In speaking with Ed Hunter, Building Inspector, in November, 2006, he informed him that it did not make any difference what the Board was working on proposing regarding setbacks to wetlands as any changes to the Ordinance would not take effect until after Town Meeting. James Nordstrom stated that that had not been the best advice. Ken Barss understood that Ed Hunter was new to the position and had taken this into account and since then Ed Hunter had recognized his advisement error and told him that setbacks needed to be considered. He explained that as a result he was now looking at the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit but could not meet all the criteria as the 3.29 acre lot had only one good spot for setting a structure and this would be in the buffer. Ken Barss stated that he was before the Planning Board tonight, procedurally, to see what his next step should be. He added that he wished to locate his structure on the back side of the brook because he had already had one building destroyed in 2002 or 2003 by a plumbing truck that went off the road and because his family would be in this home he was concerned for their safety if the structure sat too close to the road. Ken Barss noted that when the old Dunbar Road was abandoned it was split between his property and Bill Matheson’s. He further noted that he was using the old stone culvert bridge and was informed that the State needed to certify that they constructed this as a valid wetland crossing. Ken Barss stated that Ed Hunter thought this was a doable project but he needed some clarification from the Board. James Nordstrom thought that the ultimate decision would be up to the Town. Ken Barss stated that he thought it was the Board that approved whether a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) could be issued by the Building Department. He noted that he had to wait for Town Meeting to get his property Zoned from Commercial to Residential-Agricultural 5 years prior and now he was trying to upgrade the property but found himself back at square one. Dave Woodbury stated that he was unsure of what the issue was as he understood that a CUP allowed for constructing a road/driveway to cross a stream but Mr. Barss seemed to be asking for an exception to the effects of the Zoning Ordinance and he was unsure that the Planning Board had the power to do that. He asked the Coordinator for clarification. The Coordinator explained that the proposal that would be before the voters in March, 2007, would change what used to be a special exception for a non-conforming lot to a CUP for a non-conforming lot, therefore, the Planning Board, would handle that process as well as regular CUP’s. She added that the Wetlands Committee felt this would be a more streamlined procedure. Dave Woodbury clarified that if this vote passed it would allow the Board to write CUP’s and this would satisfy Mr. Barss’ issue. The Coordinator replied that was correct. The Chairman noted that certain criteria would need to be met and that the applicant was assuming that the vote would pass otherwise his proposal would be null and void. Dave Woodbury asked if the Board was being asked to take action tonight or if there was an application in existence. The Coordinator replied that there was not and that it was the applicant’s choice whether he wished to go ahead with the proposal with the assumption that it would pass or wait for Town Meeting to see if it did but either way this would proceed in the same manner as a Conditional Use Permit for a wetlands crossing in that there would be a hearing with the Planning Board. She noted that a form had not been designed yet but the Planning Board could come up with one if the applicant wished to proceed with an application before Town Meeting. Bob Furey asked if Mr. Barss was able to cross the brook/stream on his site if the building would be out of the buffer. Ken Barss replied that if he could cross the stream he would be able to keep the building out of the 50’ buffer on the front but not on the back side. He added that if he stayed on the front side of the stream the only other alternative was to place the structure 15’ off the road (NH Route 13). He understood that he was not allowed to impact the buffer but would need to remove some 80’ pine trees on the knob of the hill where he planned to place the mobile home for safety reasons. He added that the wetlands he proposed to cross was dry 3 years out of 5. The Chairman asked the size of the wetlands. Ken Barss showed the septic design to the Board which had the wetlands on it and showed the area he would be able to stay out of by 35’ but some of the buffer would need to be addressed because of the large trees on site. He noted that the structure would be on a slab. The Chairman added that this would be different than digging a foundation which was how the Regulations read. He noted that much of the language did not target driveways versus construction. Dave Woodbury asked the Coordinator what a completed application submitted to the Board for a CUP would consist of. The Coordinator replied that distances would need to be confirmed. Dave Woodbury agreed and noted that the Board had not seen the property yet, therefore, he was unsure if they should be giving assurances to Mr. Barss this evening. The Chairman noted that Mr. Barss was seeking the assurance that the Board would have the ability to grant CUPs if the vote passed. Ken Barss stated that he was here before Town Meeting because there was still snow on the site now and he knew that he would soon have trees to cut and brush to clear so he wanted to get the process going if he could. The Chairman stated that the Board’s next meeting was not until after Town Meeting anyway but Mr. Barss would first need to apply for the CUP. Dave Woodbury noted that he assumed the Board would want to site walk the property also and guessed the entire process might take 60 days. Ken Barss noted that, given the condition of the site, he had spoken to Harry Murray about applying to the State for a minor impact fill to afford him the distance he needed from the buffer. The Coordinator asked if other wetlands were present that would need crossing. Ken Barss replied that the only crossing needed was already in existence. Bob Furey asked if the Board was in a position to vote on a CUP when that ability was not yet in accordance with the current Ordinance. The Chairman stated that the Ordinance should work the way it was intended to and the Board would need to gauge the impacts which seemed like they would be lessened with a slab versus a foundation. He added that while it was assumed that trees needed to be cleared at least 20’ around a dug foundation that would not be the case here. Ken Barss noted that certain trees would still need to be cleared for safety. The Chairman did not think that the wetlands would be greatly impacted by what Mr. Barss wanted to do and that the filtering around the wetlands would still be maintained. He added that while the Board had no absolute assurances for Mr. Barss until Town Meeting he did not think his proposal was outrageous. The Coordinator stated that she could prepare an application for Mr. Barss to work with the following week. Ken Barss reiterated that he might consider applying to the State for a minor impact fill and asked if the septic design should be redrawn as Site Plans to better propose that. The Chairman thought that this should be kept out of the application as it would be more important to get the house set with the driveway. Dave Woodbury thought that the Board was not in a position tonight to tell Mr. Barss what scenario would be more likely. The Chairman offered that Mr. Barss could do the plan both ways if he chose. Ken Barss noted that he had heard some of the Board’s discussion earlier in the meeting and wondered why, if the Board was not happy with the Wetlands Ordinance, they had allowed themselves to be backed into a corner and forced to put it on the ballot. The Chairman noted that he thought it was important to work with the committee to get an ordinance that was fairly decent before the town than to let the petitioned article go ahead. He noted that the Board had the opportunity from the public input session to figure out what people had not liked in the original proposal. 9. A copy of a letter dated February 21, 2007, from Bob Furey, Planning Board member, to the Board of Selectmen and the Town Administrator, re: resignation from the Planning Board, was distributed for the Board’s information. The Planning Board thanked Bob Furey for his time on the Board. 10. A copy of a letter dated February 23, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: review of Christian Farm Estates Subdivision (Doug Hill) was distributed for the Board’s information. The Coordinator explained that this was the final sign-off. The Chairman asked if the retaining wall design review estimate was included. The Coordinator replied that this still needed to be determined. 11. The minutes of February 13, 2007, were distributed for approval at the meeting of March 27, 2007, with or without changes. 12. A copy of the All Board Meeting minutes of February 16, 2007, was distributed for the Board’s information. The Coordinator explained that department heads wanted to form a technical review committee as they felt it would be more helpful to have certain departments at the same meetings rather than waiting for separate departments to discuss similar issues at their individual meetings. She added that she would be drafting procedures for the Board’s review. 13. Discussion, re: upcoming Planning Board agenda and time for Planning Board discussion and planning efforts. The Coordinator explained that this item dealt with how the Board proposed to work out its agenda going forward. She noted that because the Master Plan update had recently occurred the Board should consider the fact that this was an important year to discuss future focus and until that was addressed they might have many frustrating meetings until the Regulations were in order and Zoning was updated. The Coordinator noted that the Board might chose to elect subcommittees to aid the process or shoulder the bulk of the work. Don Duhaime liked the idea of an extra meeting outside the regular meeting days. James Nordstrom agreed. The Chairman asked what day would be considered as it would be difficult for him to attend. He thought that if the Board began each of the first Tuesday meeting of a month at 6:30 p.m. instead of 7:00 p.m. and began regular hearings at 8:00 p.m. then they could fit the planning discussion in. The Coordinator thought that starting hearings at 8:00 p.m. would make for a late meeting time. Dave Woodbury thought that 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. would work well. He thought the first order of business would be to discuss what the problems were before getting into the meat of how to solve issues. The Coordinator stated that at the March 27, 2007, meeting they would begin at 6:45 p.m. for the Board’s election of officers and the April 10, 2007, meeting would have future planning discussion at 6:30 p.m. with the first hearing at 7:30 p.m. 14. A copy of the suggested changes to the Stormwater Management Regulations to be discussed at the March 27, 2007, was distributed for the Board’s information. The Coordinator explained that the Board would recall that they met with Willard Dodge several months prior who they charged with going back to the Steep Slopes committee to address changing the bonding requirement at the time of subdivision to the time of receiving a Building Permit. She noted that nothing had been forthcoming from the committee so she was suggesting this language for the Board’s review. The Coordinator added that she was working on a checklist that would take the requirements of Section V-V of the Subdivision Regulations and put them in checklist form. She stated that the Board needed to act on this matter quickly and the Board should be prepared to discuss this at the next meeting even if it was late. At 10:45 a.m. James Nordstrom MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne O’Brien, Recording Clerk