 |
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of January 22, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Peter Hogan. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime, Stu Lewin, and; ex-officio Dave Woodbury. 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 Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Brian McKenna and Roger Lajeunesse.
Discussion, re: Stormwater Management Plans.
Dave Woodbury asked how the copies of regulations supplied to the Board for this discussion dovetailed with drainage considerations and Steep Slopes issues reviewed in the past. The Coordinator replied that the regulations copied to the Board related to Steep Slopes and other critical areas where if they were impacted in any way by subdivision they would need a Stormwater Management Plan. Dave Woodbury noted that the regulations provided predated Steep Slopes with Steep Slopes added in as a critical area. The Coordinator explained that this was a neater way of presenting this information. Dave Woodbury clarified that they were revisiting a fairly new topic. The Coordinator agreed and noted that this was an addition to the Subdivision Regulations with the
possibility of the Board considering if it would be possible, for example, to have submitted drainage calculations revised if a property was clear cut. She added that while there may not be amendments to the sections they were looking at now there might be revisions elsewhere. Dave Woodbury asked what the area of dissatisfaction was. The Coordinator replied that it was not so much that anything was wrong but what might be missing from the regulations regarding Stormwater Management. Don Duhaime recalled that developers’ engineers often stated that there was a small CFS increase of, for example, 1.5 on a site. He noted that this was not a small increase and that runoff should be contained on a site so that it did not compound drainage issues off site. Douglas Hill thought that it was important that increases in CFS not affect Town roads. Dave Woodbury thought that sooner or later any significant watershed did affect Town roads.
He wondered if the real consideration in regard to runoff should be more for the livability its subdivisions. The Chairman felt that notes should be added to plans that stated when substantial clear cutting was done on site a revised drainage calculation would be required for the plan. Douglas Hill noted that the most damage from clear cutting was during the initial clearing before grass was reseeded for lawns, etc. The Coordinator added that issues also arose at the juncture when grubbing had not yet been started, the road was not in and erosion control measures not put in place. Don Duhaime felt that good engineering practice measures called for no runoff to leave a site. The Chairman clarified that no increase in existing runoff should leave a site. Don Duhaime reiterated that developers always spoke of CFS increases from their drainage calculations. The Chairman thought that the Board was not waiving CFS increases on sites
any longer. The Coordinator noted that the Board may be questioned by engineers on their refusal to waive certain increases since the State did allow increases when an applicant applied for an Alteration of Terrain Permit if they thought there were enough wetlands surrounding a site to absorb it. The Chairman offered the example of the overflow and washouts on Bedford Road from Campbell Swamp during the spring rain events of 2007 as an event where the wetlands could not absorb the runoff. Don Duhaime offered the example of errors in drainage calculations such as for Twin Bridge Management which he had confirmed with the Town Engineer. He stressed that while it was important to keep the calculations honest maybe errors were a common occurrence. Dave Woodbury wondered if there was any way to review old drainage calculations for areas where roads had washed out from overflows during storm events but thought it unlikely. He added that if the main
theory behind drainage calculations were wrong then all the calculations done from that theory would be incorrect.
Dave Woodbury brought up the subject of detention ponds noting that the Road Agent did not prefer them due to maintenance issues. He asked why the Town would be responsible for such maintenance. Douglas Hill replied that the right-of-ways to these detention ponds were off Town roads. Don Duhaime asked when the last time was that a detention pond was cleaned in the Town. Douglas Hill noted that the town had not seen many detention ponds until the last 4-5 years with the new regulations in place. The Coordinator noted that First Settlement Lane was one of the first subdivisions to have a detention pond but its soil characteristics did not lend themselves to that necessity. Don Duhaime thought that it would be nice to have water on a site percolate back into
the ground to replenish aquifers. Dave Woodbury noted that years ago the Conservation Commission had done a study on aquifers in the Town and the results showed that there were not as many present as in the late 1970’s. Stu Lewin asked how R.J. Moreau had gotten away with not putting any detention ponds in the areas of the Popple Road/Swanson Road subdivisions since runoff seemed to collect at the intersections of these roads. The Coordinator replied that this developer had opted to use level spreaders and sheet flows. She added that this did not mean that the drainage calculations had been completely accurate, as some underground springs had popped up along Byam Road that were a surprise, therefore, it was understood that this entire hill area was full of water. The Chairman wondered if developers would try to get around the clear cut note the Board was considering by clear cutting at the application process. The Coordinator replied that
if an applicant applies for an Intent to Cut Permit the law stated that they could not clear cut at the application level. Douglas Hill noted that even if they did their drainage calculations would then need to be based on a clear cut site. Don Duhaime stated that this was why a note should be added to plans saying that if certain things occurred on a site the drainage calculations would need to be run again. Dave Woodbury recalled that in the 1980’s many developers did clear cutting for profit to pay for the land itself but he had not seen this done in the present day. The Coordinator noted that Foxberry Road had been clear cut and that Popple and Swanson Roads were sold to different developers who then discovered that they were running into more ledge on site than anticipated and clear cut the property for ease of blasting. The Chairman added that Rick Martin’s subdivision and Fraser Drive had also been clear cut. The Coordinator
noted that some lots on Fraser Drive had been heavily logged but not clear cut Douglas Hill thought that the reason for clear cutting nowadays was mostly to obtain views on sites like Foxberry Road. The Chairman asked what could be added to the regulations regarding clear cutting and the effect it would have on drainage calculations. The Coordinator suggested that language be included to put applicants on notice that drainage calculations would be needed in certain situations and no increases in CFS would be permitted. She added that the Board may wish to consider some other innovative way to detain water on sites besides detention ponds. Don Duhaime brought up the subject of underground detention, which, although costly, was an invisible solution. He noted that assuring maintenance might be an issue. The Chairman stated that underground detention would concern him in situations where, for example, a nearby driveway or road washed out
and filled that structure. Don Duhaime replied that a vac-con truck was needed to extract dirt buildup, etc., at the initial collection points. Douglas Hill noted that such structures would also need to be replaced at some point. The Chairman thought this would be dependent on how the structure was maintained. Douglas Hill added that trees would still need to be cleared to install an underground structure like this so instead of a detention pond above it was merely below. He thought that underground detention was better suited for areas like parking lots. The Chairman thought that large detention ponds could offer dual uses when they were dry such as a ball field for a subdivision and maintenance issues would take care of themselves as residents might choose to take care of them to receive that benefit.
Don Duhaime asked if Kevin Leonard of Northpoint could attend a Planning Board meeting to be a part of these discussions. He recalled that Kevin Leonard had suggested changing the regulations to align drainage calculations with 10 year storm parameters versus 2 year which he thought was a great idea. Douglas Hill noted that any developer constructing a detention pond on their site would need to have their drainage calculations in accordance with the 10 year storm as required by the State. The Coordinator added that Kevin Leonard’s suggestion to require 50 year storm parameters for road crossing culverts on Town roads was also an important point. Don Duhaime asked if drainage calculations revealed downstream deficiencies off site if a developer should be
required to address that with large culverts, etc. The Coordinator replied that this related to the “art versus science” argument of figuring drainage calculations and a developer may reply that if their drainage calculations were done accurately with required results anything occurring down stream would not be their issue. Don Duhaime noted that he was referring to addressing surrounding ditchlines. The Chairman returned to the subject of detention ponds and noted that there was nothing in the regulations that said it was the Town’s responsibility to address deficiencies in the inspection of such structures, therefore, the responsibility would fall to the property owner. Douglas Hill thought that assuming the access to the pond was in the Town’s right-of-way it would be the Town’s responsibility.
Stu Lewin pointed out that on the second page of the handout there were three different names for stormwater management plans and asked why this was the case. The Coordinator replied that at the time this was written it was intended to cover items on other checklists that might use these names and wanted to be all encompassing for reference purposes. Stu Lewin asked if the Board had a copy of the Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control for Urban Development in New Hampshire. The Coordinator replied that there was a copy in the Planning Department.
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board and took a seat in the audience as his hearing was up next.
DOUGLAS HILL CONSTRUCTION Adjourned from 1/08/08
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment
Location: Christian Farm Drive
Tax Map/Lot #5/16-21 & 5/16-22
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Douglas Hill of Douglas Hill Construction and Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, of Sandford Surveying and Engineering. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman stated that a site walk had been held on the previous Saturday, January 12, 2008, and that the Board had copies of the previous site walk notes pertaining to this application. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that, as requested by the Board, he had shown on the plan that each of the 2 lots involved could support individual driveways that did not exceed the maximum 10% grade. He added that the grades were at 10% initially then flattened out and followed site contours. The Chairman asked the grade difference between the two driveways if they were constructed individually. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that if, for example, the first driveway represented the floor level there was a 10’ span to the next driveway that rose up 3’. The
Chairman clarified that this was a 3:1 slope and noted that a drainage swale would be present there also. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that on the conceptual plan (versus what the applicant was now requesting) drainage would need to be picked up by a second culvert to be brought down into the existing roadside ditch. Dave Woodbury thought that the Board had requested to see the capacity of the pre-lot line adjusted lot’s ability to support two single driveways. Douglas Hill noted that whether a common driveway was approved or not the lot line adjustment would need to happen because the permitted driveway for lot #5/16-21 split the lot lines. Dave Woodbury thought that the original question had been if lot #5/16-22 in its original configuration could support its own driveway. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it could but blasting, cuts and fills would be required. He added that this lot had been approved showing the driveway apron (a
dashed red line on the plan). The Chairman stated that he felt that this was another example of a cluster subdivision with lot lines drawn that did not accommodate the driveways without crossing over lots. He added that Douglas Hill did not draw the plan, Bedford Design did and the road builder likely disregarded lot lines assuming the Board would fix the issues like they had for a previous subdivision with the same scenario with lot line adjustments and easements. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that they did not expect the Board to “fix” the problem but asked that they consider approving a sensible design that was the revision of observations made in the field after the subdivision was approved. Dave Woodbury thought that it would make sense to eliminate Lot #5/16-22. The Chairman noted that the subdivision would not have been approved with the issues presented now by this lot.
Dave Woodbury noted that the original question was whether the common driveway proposed for the 2 lots involved should be allowed to split at 150’ versus the required maximum of 100’. He asked if a conceptual draft of the 100’ split design was shown. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that 150’ was shown on the plans tonight but that this could be drawn in and the difference represented a scale of 1” on the plan. He added that with the design at a 100’ split the fills required in the field would spill down to the left of the driveway. Douglas Hill noted that this was doable. Dave Woodbury asked Douglas Hill what solution was more sensible in his opinion. Douglas Hill replied that he felt a common driveway versus two separate
driveways was more sensible. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that two separate driveways would require the construction of a stabilized embankment which would require considerable excavation and the result of two curb cuts right next to each other. Don Duhaime noted that the Subdivision Regulations stated that driveways be so many feet apart and at this point in the process the choice should be the common driveway after a 100’ split. The Chairman stated that the subdivision would never have been approved by the Board with the proposed common driveway because of how it affected the placement of the houses on the lots given the cluster design. He added that the driveway design encroached on the other property. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, explained that Bedford Design had done the design for the applicant and because of the presence of a significant hunk of ledge on one of the lots had chosen to run the driveway where it was to follow natural contours
that would eliminate the need to blast. The Chairman stated that the driveway to lot #5/16-22 was in the front yard of lot #5/16-21. Douglas Hill stated that this area was wooded. The Chairman replied that it was not so wooded that the lots were clearly visible from driveway to driveway so that the back of the house would be visible from the front of the other lot. Douglas Hill replied that this would be the case if the driveway was shared or not. The Chairman felt that the whole premise Douglas Hill had sold the Board regarding the design of this subdivision was falling apart given the driveway issues of these two lots as they decimated the concept he had tried to portray. Douglas Hill stated that he was not requesting anything that was against the regulations and that the shared driveway proposed would not detract from the site at all. He added that this was a challenging driveway entrance to construct and he did not want to ruin the look
of the main entrance coming into it. The Chairman thought that the front lot of the subdivision should be merged with lot #5/16-22 which would enable a driveway to come in over the front lot. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that because only 1 acre was required 5 lots could have been put in this area but the applicant had tried to work with the lots by a better design. Douglas Hill added that in open space designs he also liked privacy which he had tried to do with this subdivision’s design. The Chairman stated that it still needed to be proven that individual driveways could be supported given the existing lot lines of these lots. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that he had provided the simplest example of this which was most harmonious with the existing contours. Dave Woodbury thought that the original design had been an attempt to pull the wool over the Board’s eyes given the issues they were now dealing with. Douglas Hill
replied that he took offense to that comment. The Chairman clarified that it was the original design company, not the applicant who had drawn the plan. Dave Woodbury noted that it was not possible for the Board to force the applicant to give up one of the lots because the subdivision was approved. The Chairman agreed. Dave Woodbury stated that the Board should focus on the consideration of the 150’ versus 100’ split. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that adding a second individual driveway would wipe out any remaining forestation in the front of lot #5/16-21. Dave Woodbury added that it would also increase run off into the road.
The Chairman stated that the Board would like on file with the plan proof that individual driveways could be built along the existing lot lines. He added that the “catch 22” for the Board was the fact that a Building Permit could not be pulled without a Driveway Permit. Stu Lewin did not think the common driveway split should exceed the maximum allowed of 100’. The Chairman agreed. Dave Woodbury noted that although he would personally be more tolerant of 150’ it seemed to be the Board’s sentiment that the split stay at 100’.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, wished to noted that he had assumed the viability of the lots had been proven for accommodating single driveways during the original approval and apologized for misconstruing this. He asked the Board if they were in agreement that it was acceptable for the rear property lines of the 2 lots in question to follow along an existing stone wall even though it resulted in an odd shape for one of the lots. Don Duhaime replied that he was ok with this. Stu Lewin disagreed but did not have an issue with keeping the design the way it was. Dave Woodbury agreed with Stu Lewin but noted that he did not think the Board had a right to dictate the aesthetics of a lot if it met its requirements. The Chairman clarified that if a “leg” had been
added to meet the minimum acreage requirement he would not accept a lot as a legal lot but this was not the case in the applicant’s scenario, therefore, he had no issues. Stu Lewin asked if the covenants for the shared driveway proposed were written in standard form to be reviewed by Town Counsel. The Coordinator replied that she was under the impression that they would go out for review as there was no standard Town form for shared driveways unlike covenants for fire sprinkler systems. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, suggested that the same format could be used for the shared driveway covenants as had been drawn up for another applicant (Plantier) and reviewed/approved by Town Counsel. The Coordinator replied that if this was the case then the applicant should be all set. The Chairman asked Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, to confirm the information on the applicant’s shared driveway covenants and if it did not mimic the Plantier covenants to draw up a new
one that did. Earl Sandford thanked the Board for their consideration.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to adjourn the application of Douglas Hill Construction, LLC, Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Location: Christian Farm Drive, Tax Map/Lot #5/16-21 & 5/16-22, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to February 12, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill reclaimed his seat on the Board.
VISTA ROAD, LLC
Compliance Hearing/Major Subdivision/14 Lots
Location: Inkberry and Wilson Hill Roads (Hutchinson Lane)
Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was Brian McKenna of Thibeault Corporation and an interested party, Roger Lajeunesse of 36 Hutchinson Lane.
Don Duhaime stated that as-built plans were not due to be submitted until May 15, 2008, according to the applicant’s latest information. Brian McKenna of Thibeault Properties agreed, noting that an in-house as-built had been prepared that did not meet the town requirements, therefore, a new as-built would be done by T.F. Moran. The Chairman stated that this gave the Board nothing to work with currently. Stu Lewin and Don Duhaime agreed. Brian McKenna asked if the Board was in possession of a letter dated January 17, 2008, by the Town Engineer regarding “outstanding items”. The Chairman replied that they were. Brian McKenna noted that outside of reviewing the as-builts a short punch list of items had been completed. Stu Lewin noted
that 5+ lots were not yet finished and wondered how any damage caused by construction vehicles to the road on which the uncompleted the homes to these lots were located would be addressed. The Chairman stated that once the snow was gone and the as-builts submitted by T.F. Moran the Board would be better able to come up with a bond number that would allow the road to be brought up to Town standards. Brian McKenna asked the Chairman the Board’s thought regarding the Town Engineer’s letter of January 17, 2008. The Chairman replied that this was not relevant at the moment because the Board had been out to the site numerous times prior and had seen so many things wrong that he preferred a viewing in the spring before considering a bond. The Board agreed.
Brian McKenna asked if the Board could highlight some of their outstanding issues other than the driveways. The Chairman replied that house/driveway placements and swapping of CO’s were some examples. Roger Lajeunesse of 36 Hutchinson Lane was present to see what happened at the hearing. Brian McKenna clarified that requesting compliance and reduction of the bond was a moot point for now. The Chairman replied that was correct. Brian McKenna submitted the certified letter fee for this compliance hearing.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDE NCE FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2008
1. Driveway Permit Applications for John & Rita Young, Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #’s 5/41 & 5/41-2 through 4, for the Board’s approval. (See attached sitewalk notes – No copies of permits)
Stu Lewin MOVED to approve Driveway Permit #’s 07-024 (lot #5/41), 07-025 (lot
#5/41-2), 07-026 (lot #5/41-3) and 07-027 (lot #5/41-4) on Beard Road, with the
Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of ten foot (10’) radii minimum; and, the driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. Dave Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Discussion, re: sitewalk for Steve LaBranche, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-2, Byam Road. (see attached sidewalk notes)
The Chairman stated as a point of information that the above noted sitewalk was aborted because nothing was marked for the Board to view. Dave Woodbury added that there were steepness issues in two dimensions (down the road and along side slopes). Don Duhaime stated that he was more concerned about the guardrail in that area. The Chairman noted that because the Board had wasted their time twice going to this site which was improperly marked the applicant should not expect a site walk to be rescheduled before April or May of 2008.
3. Daily road inspection reports dated, October 29, 30, 31, November 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 16, 19, 21, 26 & 27, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Hutchinson Lane, were
distributed for the Board’s information.
4. Daily road inspection reports dated, October 30, November 9, 19, 21 & 27, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: SHB Properties, LLC, were distributed for the Board’s information.
5. Daily road inspection reports dated, October 29, 30, 31, November 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 & December 2, 2007, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Douglas Hill Construction, LLC, were distributed for the Board’s information.
6. The Statement of 2007, Income and Expense for New Boston Planning Department, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that the Planning Department had taken in $20K less in fees in 2007 due to a decrease in applications submitted.
7. Notice of rescheduled hearing in Goffstown, NH, re: condominium project at Mountain & Bog Brook Roads, to Thursday, January 24, 2008. (No copies)
8. A copy of a letter received January 17, 2008, from Kevin M. Leonard, PE, Principal Engineer, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, New Boston Planning Coordinator, re: SHB Properties, LLC- As-built Detention Basin Calculation Review, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator recalled to the Board that this had been the matter relating to a detention pond that had been constructed slightly smaller than what was designed, therefore, the Town Engineer had wanted to check that it could still accomplish its task which the design engineer confirmed to be the case.
9. A copy of New Boston Zoning Board of Adjustment, Meeting Minutes, January 15, 2008, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator suggested that the Selectmen, Planning Board and ZBA might wish to consider a joint meeting to clarify the details of a saw mill proposal that had gone before the ZBA for special exception. She explained that the ZBA had ruled that because the saw mill was portable it could be allowed on the property proposed with a permit issued by the Selectmen if no building was set up on site. The Coordinator added that she had never heard of such a permit and thought that a memo of clarification from the ZBA might be warranted. Dave Woodbury noted that such a permit would have no bearing on a Non Residential Site Plan, therefore, was a building a necessary condition before NRSP requirements would be applied. The Chairman added that he was interested in the phrase
within the ZBA’s minutes which read: “…portable saw mill allowed in any zone…” The Coordinator then looked up the definition of a “portable saw mill” in Zoning. Dave Woodbury thought that a portable saw mill was as subject to NRSP requirements as any other business. The Chairman noted that a saw mill “building” was generally open on three sides, therefore, he felt that the ZBA had misconstrued the definition of a saw mill. He felt that the consensus of the board’s involved should be sought and the Planning Board’s consensus supplied to them for their reactions. The Chairman added that depending on their response the Planning Board could require a site plan and 2 year permit.
10. A copy of a Union Leader article, dated Sunday, January 13, 2008, titled: Epping going green, by Jason Schreiber, Sunday News Correspondent, was distributed for the Board’s information.
11. A copy of an article from January/February 2008, Environmental News, titled Roundabouts-Not Your Typical Traffic Circle, by William Oldenburg, NH Department of Transportation, was distributed for the Board’s information.
12. A copy of an announcement from New Hampshire Office of Energy & Planning, announcing 15th Annual Spring Planning & Zoning Conference, Saturday, April 26, 2008, at the Center of NH, Radisson Hotel, Manchester, NH, was distributed for the Board’s information.
13. The minutes of January 8, 2008, were noted as having been distributed via email, for approval, with or without changes, at the meeting of February 12, 2008.
14. Endorsement of a Notice of Merger, H. Randall and Gail C. Parker, Tax Map/Lot #19/12 & 19/13, Mill Street, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
The Coordinator explained that this was a merging of 2 lots and that the statute stated that as long as such a merger did not result in making anything non-conforming the Planning Board was required to approve the request.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to endorse the Notice of Merger, H. Randall and Gail C. Parker, Tax Map/Lot #19/12 & 19/13, Mill Street. Stu Lewin seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman and Secretary endorsed the above noted Notice of Merger.
15. Endorsement of a Site Review Agreement for Anthony Eberhardt and Kimberly Messa, Tax Map/Lot #19/44, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman endorsed the above noted Site Review Agreement.
16. Driveway Permit Applications for Eric & Gabriele VanTassell, Cochran Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #10/19, 10/19-1 & 10/19-2, for the Board’s action. (No Copies)
The Coordinator clarified that the subdivision attached to the above noted Driveway Permit Applications had been recently approved and the plans signed at the last meeting with Road Agent’s signature pending but now obtained.
Dave Woodbury MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #’s 07-056, 057, & 058 for proposed driveways, with the Standard Planning Board Requirements: the driveway shall have two inches (2”) of winter binder (pavement) to be applied to the driveway to a minimal distance of twenty five feet (25ft) from the centerline of the road; the driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of ten foot (10’) radii minimum; and, the driveways shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60-90 degrees. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
17. A copy of minutes of the All Boards Meeting of December 6, 2007, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that this had to do with a draft of the Bedford Road Traffic Study and what was left to do. She added that a final report should be ready soon. Stu Lewin asked if the Planning Board would be allowed to comment on the study and request changes if wished. The Coordinator replied that this was possible.
18. Read File: Notice of Regional Impact for January 24, 2008, from the Town of Goffstown, Placid Woods, Mountain and Bog Roads.
19. The Coordinator distributed copies of the minutes from the Small Scale Planned Commercial Committee from meeting dates 11/26/07, 12/10/07, 1/07/08 and 1/21/08, for the Board’s information.
At 8:40 p.m. Stu Lewin MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| |
