TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of May 13, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Douglas Hill. Present were regular members, Don Duhaime, Peter Hogan, and; ex-officio Christine Quirk. Chairman Stu Lewin was not in attendance. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O’Brien.
Present in the audience were Mark Monbouquette, Diane Drake, Ray Shea, Brandy Mitroff, Liz Beliveau, Sue St. Cyr, Damian Martineau, Anthony Eberhardt, Kimberly Messa, Tom Miller, Bob Todd, LLS, Tom Quirk and Barry Charrest .
Discussion, re: review of Planning Board topics for 2008.
Douglas Hill stated that the Coordinator had some points to clarify and turned the discussion over to her. The Coordinator noted that one of the first goals the Planning Board had taken on for 2008 was to address stormwater management more specifically and that would be further addressed in tonight’s scheduled public hearing. She then noted that there was a notice listed under Miscellaneous Business this evening regarding a Low Impact Development conference which she would be attending and possibly the Chairman. Thirdly, the Coordinator brought up road standards and noted that at the next meeting on May 27, 2008, the Road Committee, Selectmen, Fire Wards, Town Engineer and Road Agent were invited to share discussion on
this topic which was scheduled for 6:30 p.m. She noted that she had distributed a packet to the Board that included some suggestions from Kevin Leonard, PE, of Northpoint Engineering, LLC and also included other items such as low volume road suggestions from SNHPC.
The Coordinator stated that the Small Scale Commercial District Committee would be meeting next Monday, May 19, 2008, (meeting of May 12th had been canceled as some committee members could not attend). She added that design guidelines were in full swing and work was still being done on definitions. The Coordinator added that the Committee would propose to the Board that they work on the Sign Ordinance in the Zoning Ordinance regarding sizing, requirements, etc. Don Duhaime asked, on the same topic, what the Building Department’s response had been to the new sign for the physical therapy business that had been recently approved at the Meetinghouse Hill location. The Coordinator replied that the sign was
to be replaced with one of the correct size and the applicants would go the the ZBA for a variance at a later date. She explained that the old sign on site for the gun shop that had done business there had been 24” by 30” in size but was grandfathered in as it was put in place prior to the new Zoning Regulations. Douglas Hill returned to the subject of the Small Scale Commercial District Committee and asked if they had gotten any professional consultation in their work. The Coordinator replied that as of yet they had not although SNHPC had assisted them throughout their project. She noted that the Committee had had to back off slightly from SNHPC when the project became extended as they were running out of money, however, Jack Munn and Linda Ajello of SNHPC were very well versed in design guidelines and had been good contacts throughout the process for things that the Committee felt needed reviewing. The Coordinator stated that the
committee planned to present their work to the Board in July, 2008, as much of what they proposed would affect the Zoning Ordinance if it progressed and much publicity and education to Town residents would be required in preparation for the March 2009 vote.
The Coordinator stated that a plan should be prepared regarding Source Water Protection and Water Resource Management by June 2008, and from that there would also be suggested language changes to the Zoning Ordinance also.
In regard to the Housing/Conservation Grant the Coordinator stated that the application had been sent to the OEP and a revised project narrative had been copied to Board members in Miscellaneous Business. She added that the awards should have been announced by April 25, 2008, but were delayed, and that in turn would pinch the time line for the Town to get things done for the project should they get an award. Don Duhaime asked if multi-family housing was addressed. The Coordinator replied that this was part of the grant application and was an item they would be looking at if the Town got the grant money.
The Coordinator stated that Dwight Sowerby, Esq., had made some recommendations regarding the Board’s proposed changes to the Stormwater Management Regulations and had also forwarded a letter that Bill Drescher, Esq., had written to another town suggesting that the Town might want to consider regulations that mimicked Federal laws which would mean that they would take into account both new and existing development with rules in place that stated that existing stormwater systems had to be maintained and could not be polluted with runoff. Douglas Hill wondered what the legal ramifications would be and how they would proceed in the case of existing development. The Coordinator stated that she had not fully read Bill Drescher Esq.’s letter but suggested that all Board members do so and bring it back for discussion. Don Duhaime stated that he liked section 8 of the piece which discussed utilizing innovative stormwater management techniques and retaining stormwater on
site to be reintroduced into the groundwater, a point he had stressed often.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 13, 2008
1. Approval of minutes of April 8, 2008, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Don Duhaime MOVED to approve the minutes of April 8, 2008, as written. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. The Small Scale Commercial District minutes of April 14, 2008, were distributed for the Board’s information.
3. The Small Scale Commercial District minutes of April 28, 2008, were distributed for the Board’s information.
5. Driveway Permit for Robert & Constance Brown, 683 Bedford Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/64, for the Board’s action.
Don Duhaime stated that although he had no issue with the Driveway Permit he would prefer that trees would not have to be cut down just to relocate a driveway. Christine Quirk replied that she thought the trees would need to be cut because part of the road used to belong to Mark Ciarla. Douglas Hill did not think that the Board had any recourse other than having an opinion on the trees as there were no sight distance issues. Don Duhaime agreed and stated that it was merely his opinion. Peter Hogan stated that he assumed that the design proposed was the straightest course to keep lot lines even and added that he had no issues with the Driveway Permit. The Board agreed.
Don Duhaime MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #08-002 for Robert and Constance Brown, 683 Bedford Road, Tax Map/Lot #12/64, for a proposed driveway, 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.
Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
6. Endorsement of a Site Plan Review Agreement for Tom Miller, Olde Time Sawing & Lumber, LLC, (Applicant) & Craig Heafield (Owner), Tax Map/Lot #6/22, River Road a/k/a NH Route 13, by the Planning board Chairman.
The Vice Chairman (in the Chairman’s absence) signed the above noted Site Plan Review Agreement.
7. Endorsement of a Site Plan for Toad Hill Farm, LLC, Linda Pothier & Michael Pare,
Tax Map/Lot #3/21, 40 Helena Drive, by the Planning Board Chairman.
Because of multiple signature sheets the Vice Chairman determined that he could sign the above noted Site Plan at the end of the meeting (in the Chairman’s absence).
8. Schedule a site walk for Hutchinson Lane, road acceptance.
A site walk was scheduled for Tuesday, May 20, 2008, at 6:30 p.m.
9. A copy of a faxed letter dated April 29, 2008, from Raymond P. Shea, Sandford Surveying and Engineering, Inc. to New Boston Planning Board, re: Jaqueline M. Bussiere et al, Tax Map/Lot # 12/88, request for extension of conditions subsequent from
June 1, 2008, to June 10, 2009, for the Board’s action.
The Board had no issues with this request.
Don Duhaime MOVED to extend the conditions subsequent for Jaqueline M. Bussiere et al, Tax Map/Lot # 12/88, from June 1, 2008, to June 10, 2009. Peter Hogan
seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
10. A copy of a faxed letter dated April 29, 2008, from Raymond P. Shea, Sandford Surveying and Engineering, Inc. to New Boston Planning Board, re: Indian Falls, Marc E. LeBlanc 2004 Trust, Tax Map/Lot # 12/89, request for extension of conditions subsequent from June 1, 2008, to July 10, 2009, for the Board’s action.
The Board had no issues with the above request.
Don Duhaime MOVED to extend the conditions subsequent for Indian Falls, Marc E.
LeBlanc 2004 Trust, Tax Map/Lot # 12/89, request for extension of conditions subsequent from June 1, 2008, to July 10, 2009.
Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
11. A copy of a letter dated April 16, 2008, from Damian Martineau, Damian’s On the River, to Planning Board Members, re: Ice Cream Gazebo located at 737 River Road, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Planning Board Assistant noted that Damian Martineau would be present for this item later in the evening. The Board determined that they would wait until he was in attendance to address this item.
29. Driveway Permit Application from Vista Road, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #6/40-5-11, Hutchinson Lane, for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill stated that he had viewed the driveway and did not know the grade but felt it was below 10% and seemed to follow a constant pitch. The Coordinator and Planning Assistant noted that the grade had been measured at 8.88% as shown on the as-built plan. The Board had no further issues.
Christine Quirk MOVED to accept the as-built plans and confirm satisfactory installation of the driveway to lot #6/40-5-11, Hutchinson Lane. Peter Hogan seconded the motion.
The Vice Chairman called for a vote: Don Duhaime and Christine Quirk – AYE, Peter Hogan – NAY – as he had not viewed the driveway. The motion PASSED.
12. Discussion, re: Waiver requests.
The Coordinator explained that according to State Law the granting of waiver requests was to be based on proven hardship, not, for example, better design or agreement between the Board and an applicant. She clarified that over the years the waiver granting process had become relaxed with many planning boards and the hardship rule not adhered to, therefore, a Senate bill had been proposed in the House to allow the discretion that had evolved, however, it failed, and lawyers were now cautioning that the hardship rule be followed and documented in writing. Peter Hogan asked what constituted a hardship. The Coordinator replied that this was a gray area because nothing was written on that but an applicant would need to propose a hardship when requesting a waiver and this would
need to go on record in the decision making process.
13. Discussion, re: Twin Bridge Management, LLC.
The Coordinator stated that the main question was whether the Board wanted to walk this site because logging had allegedly taken place within the plan’s 250’ buffer area. She clarified that 150’ of the buffer was under the Shoreland Protection Act and the applicants had added an additional 100’ buffer when the plan was proposed. The Coordinator stated that it appeared that the logger had gotten carried away and the State Forester had felt that although nothing was compromised in the 150” Shoreland Protection Act buffer he could not say with certainty that the additional 100’ buffer was not impacted. Because the Forester has no authority the Coordinator explained that this issue now comes back to the Planning Board. Douglas Hill
asked if the cutting had been done this year. The Coordinator replied that it had. She added that when a call was placed to the developer they said that the logger had disregarded some flags and been released from his services, however, she had later learned that he had been rehired. Don Duhaime thought that a Cease and Desist Order should be sent to the developer. The Coordinator replied that a first step could be a visit to the site to see the flags and the location of the 250’ buffer. Douglas Hill agreed. Peter Hogan thought that the Board should first know what their recourse options were otherwise they would be wasting their time. The Coordinator replied that the issue was in the Planning Board’s court because it was possible that a condition of the plan had been violated. Christine Quirk added that the Selectmen were investigating the violation of the applicant’s gravel permit as they had gone outside the 10
acre area on the site for which they had not approached the ZBA. Douglas Hill asked if this issue affected the subdivision. Christine Quirk replied that it did not. Peter Hogan asked why that was the case. The Coordinator replied that the applicants had stated at the time of the application that there would be a gravel operation on that lot and had noted on their plan that there would be no house built on the lot while the gravel operation was underway. Douglas Hill thought that the Board should view the site but should also follow up on their options as Peter Hogan had suggested, with Town Counsel. Peter Hogan noted that the Board could not revoke the plan because there were houses built on some of the lots. The Coordinator clarified that a revocation in part was allowed in certain cases and that an applicant could then reapply. Don Duhaime asked what lot was compromised if the applicants were only building along Twin Bridge Road
currently. The Coordinator replied that this lot was behind the gravel pit lot. Douglas Hill asked if there was still work being done on site. Christine Quirk replied that as far as she knew the developers were digging outside of the gravel boundary into their voluntary 100’ buffer. Peter Hogan thought that having a map of the proposed violation area might be helpful. Christine Quirk replied that Kim Burkhamer had a map from 1995 that showed the 10 acre area. Peter Hogan thought that a Cease and Desist Order was warranted and that the developers should be made to submit a plan showing what they had done on site thus far. The Coordinator replied that no one had been on site yet to confirm if an issue existed with the buffer logging and the Forester had only stated that there might be one. Douglas Hill thought that a letter should be sent to Twin Bridge Management, LLC, informing them that the Planning Board was aware that they
may have cut into the 250’ buffer area on their site and that they would be going out to view it to make a determination. The Board agreed.
Christine Quirk recused herself from the Board as her hearing was up next.
QUIRK, THOMAS P. & CHRISTINE A. Adjourned from 3/04/08
Submission of Application/Preliminary Hearing/Public Hearing
Major Subdivision/8 Lots
Location: Clark Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #7/10
Residential-Agricultural “R-A’ District
Douglas Hill read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ray Shea of Sandford Surveying and Engineering, the applicants Thomas and Christine Quirk and
Christine Quirk’s sons Barry and Wayne Charest. Abutters and interested parties present were Diane Drake, Mark Monbouquette, Sue St. Cyr, Liz Beliveau and David Jewers.
Ray Shea stated that the applicants proposed an 8 lot subdivision on Clark Hill Road and that an April 29, 2008, site walk had recently been held with members of the Board who had walked the frontages and the existing access.
Ray Shea stated that they had looked at the sight distances and all the lots seemed to meet the requirements with the shortest sight distance measuring 235’ and the longest between 400’ and 500’. He added that the lots with proposed common driveways could support individual drives if they were constructed east of their lot corners. Ray Shea further noted that the lots with common drives off the existing access road to the campground could also support individual driveways, however, this would make for 3 points of access in that location and the applicants were trying to keep the number of curb cuts reduced if possible. He clarified that in using the existing gravel access way to the campground as a point of entry for the lots off it they were not
intending to further develop any backland beyond those lots. Peter Hogan asked if the applicants intended to upgrade the existing gravel access way to Class V status. Ray Shea replied that they would not. Peter Hogan clarified that the existing access way was essentially being used as a common driveway of sorts and that the portion involved would be upgraded to NFPA standards as required in the Town’s driveway regulations. Ray Shea replied that was correct. Peter Hogan asked if the lots proposed off the access way could support their own individual driveways and still maintain proper sight distance and grade. Ray Shea replied that the sight distance was good from the proposed access points and that when you headed in an easterly direction it was diminished. He added that to accommodate this an access easement could be pushed over and a knoll removed. Christine Quirk clarified that individual driveways were possible.
Peter Hogan asked if the next set of lots with common driveways proposed could sustain individual driveways. Ray Shea replied that they could. Peter Hogan explained that he raised the question to clarify the fact that common driveways were not being used to circumvent the Town’s Ordinance. Interested party Mark Monbouquette asked the purpose of common versus individual driveways. Ray Shea replied that common driveways were proposed to cut down on curb cuts along Clark Hill Road that would be very close to each other if the driveways were individual. Douglas Hill noted that the Police and Fire Departments had preferred, for safety purposes, that these driveways be common in their discussions with the Technical Review Committee. Abutter Diane Drake was concerned about adding several more driveways to Clark Hill Road which was very curvy and pointed out that one of the proposed driveways was near a telephone pole that had been the site
of accidents in the past. She added that she wished to go on record as having a concern about the Town considering the possibility of a committee that would address issues, for example, of Selectmen having an agenda and using their position for personal gain in the Town, which she felt this application represented. Diane Drake noted that she herself had had difficulty in getting her own driveway constructed in what was a very sloped area.
Peter Hogan asked how many lots were proposed given the common driveways. Ray Shea replied that 8 were proposed. Peter Hogan asked how many lots would be proposed if individual driveways were proposed. Ray Shea stated 8 lots would be proposed regardless of common or individual driveways. Interested party Liz Beliveau asked if 8 “safe” lots were proposed. Peter Hogan replied that there was no other kind of lot in the perspective of what the Planning Board would consider and that this was what he was establishing to the audience when Liz Beliveau arrived at the hearing a few moments prior. Don Duhaime added that he had noted in the minutes of the site walk for the application that the pole in question could be a sight distance issue. Ray
Shea noted that the pole in question was near one of the proposed driveways, however, because it was 1’ in width he did not see it as being a sight distance issue. Douglas Hill clarified for the audience that sight distance from a driveway was measured 10’ back from the edge of pavement, 3’ off the ground and 200’ in either direction. Diane Drake reiterated that there had been several accidents along Clark Hill Road that had involved the pole in question. Peter Hogan stated that, in his opinion, the pole being discussed did not dictate a sight distance obstruction.
Mark Monbouquette stated that he had some experience as an engineer and questioned whether some of the proposed lots fit the definition of having suitable building envelopes. Douglas Hill replied that in terms of engineering the engineer’s stamp on the plan certified that a lot met the criteria of having a legal building envelope and added that the State also came into play in looking at lot plans. Mark Monbouquette questioned some of the proposed lots viability in relation to the Town’s Steep Slope Ordinance. He added that the site was within a huge watershed area and wondered what impacts would be sustained to an existing beaver pond, wildlife, etc., and whether the State took this into consideration. The Coordinator clarified that the Steep
Slope Ordinance stated that if a lot had a suitable building envelope of ½ an acre then an applicant was in the clear, however, if this was not the case then a Stormwater Management Plan would be required to prove that no increased runoff would result from the lot and that it would not adversely impact the surrounding critical area. She added that the Planning Board would also review required drainage calculations in the final approval process of such an application. The Coordinator further clarified that application would go through a two step approval process which required that State Subdivision Approval be met also. Peter Hogan asked what constituted a buildable lot. The Coordinator replied that a lot needed to be a minimum of 2 acres with 1.5 acres dry. Peter Hogan noted that it was not in the Board’s discretion to grant lots that were not statutorily legal. Mark Monbouquette stated that he was under the impression that a suitable
building lot was defined by a half acre of contiguous flat dry land. He asked if there would be a State study conducted to access what impact the subdivision would have on the surrounding watershed and wildlife in the area. Peter Hogan noted that a subdivision was not allowed to increase or change runoff from pre to post-construction and that water flows needed to be dealt with on site. He added that it was against State law to use excess chemicals anywhere on site. Douglas Hill noted that each lot would also need a State approved septic design and that in the case of this application the Board was likely to require an Environmental Impact Study.
Diane Drake noted that she purchased 36 acres on Clark Hill Road because she wanted to live in an area with abundant wildlife and hoped to someday offer a wildlife sanctuary on this property, however, she was unsure what impacts her land and its wildlife would now sustain because she abutted the applicant’s campground. Douglas Hill stated that, legally, this application had nothing to do with the campground. Diane Drake asked if a wildlife and wetland study was planned for the site. Douglas Hill replied that the wetlands on site had already been mapped. Don Duhaime added that the Conservation Commission would also be viewing the site. Diane Drake asked who would be responsible for “policing” the site regarding any runoff issues. Peter Hogan reiterated that there was no runoff allowed from the site. Diane Drake noted that even changes made to the angling of Clark Hill Road over the years had increased runoff. Douglas Hill added that a Stormwater Management Plan
would come into play for lots that disturbed critical areas. Peter Hogan clarified that the netting installed on sites during construction prevented sediment flows before restabilization after which time no runoff was allowed on other properties. The Coordinator further clarified that increased runoff on a property was not allowed but could remain at the level that it was pre-construction. Interested party Sue St. Cyr asked what the large circles on the plan represented. Ray Shea replied that these were potential locations for wells and the septic sites were also shown. Peter Hogan noted that a lot’s well also needed to be situated a certain distance from its corresponding septic system. Sue St. Cyr stated that she was concerned about leaching into nearby Clark Swamp. Peter Hogan replied that the State would look at that as well.
Don Duhaime inquired about the positioning of the second lot off the existing fire access road. Ray Shea noted that it currently was proposed around a wetland, however, if the applicant gained preliminary approval they would be able to revisit the driveway location designs. He added that in this preliminary phase he had no other issues to address. Peter Hogan clarified for the audience that preliminary approval meant that an application continued to the next stage, it did not mean that a plan was approved.
Peter Hogan MOVED to recommend that the application of Thomas P. and Christine A. Quirk, Major Subdivision, 8 Lots, Location: Clark Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #7/10, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, proceed to the final application stage. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 8:10 p.m. the Planning Board took a 5 minute break.
Christine Quirk reclaimed her seat on the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING
On the adoption of proposed Subdivision Regulations
(SEE SEPARATE NOTICE)
The Coordinator began by noting that Dwight Sowerby, Esq., had no comments regarding proposed amendment #1.
The Coordinator stated that Dwight Sowerby, Esq. had suggested in proposed amendment #2 that the new language within it be made into its own sub-letter and the text renumbered accordingly.
The Coordinator noted that Dwight Sowerby, Esq., had no comment regarding proposed amendment #3. She then stated that Dwight Sowerby, Esq., indicated that the ability to review a subdivision should conditions on site change considerably after approval was inherent in the process and the language being proposed here was not, strictly speaking, necessary. Dwight Sowerby, Esq., did note, however, that if the Board was trying to make it perfectly clear of the consequences of changing a site after approval, the language could remain. The Board thought it very important to include the language. The Coordinator stated that the Chairman suggested in an email that the word “thought” should be changed to “presented”. The Board agreed.
The Coordinator noted that Dwight Sowerby, Esq., had no changes to proposed amendment #5.
Douglas Hill clarified that the only major changes other than some housekeeping items would be the inclusion of the 50 year storm requirements for culverts, site condition changse, underdrains and headwalls. The Coordinator agreed. She added that in proposed amendment #3, Town Counsel had pointed out that everything was specific to drainage requirements with numbers, percentages and distances and the Board should consider whether this might give rise to numerous waiver requests which would have to be requested based on a hardship. The Board did not think this would be an issue.
Douglas Hill opened the hearing for public discussion and there was none. There was no more discussion by the Board. Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator for clarification on moving forward. The Coordinator replied that statutorily there was no requirement to hold a second public hearing if changes were made to the proposed regulations. She noted that, in the past, the Board had held a second public hearing if substantive changes were made. She noted that for tonight the only change was some renumbering which had not, historically, been considered a substantive change. Peter Hogan stated that he would prefer to see the final document renumbered prior to holding a formal vote. Other Board members did not disagree.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the Public Hearing on the proposed adoption of Subdivision Regulations for voting on its final form to May 27, 2008, and notifying those present in the audience of this date of adjournment in lieu of a reposting in the paper. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MESSA, KIMBERLY & EBERHARDT, ANTHONY
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Hospital (physical therapy center)
Location: 16 Meetinghouse Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #19/44
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Douglas Hill read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants, Kimberly Messa and Anthony Eberhardt. No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Coordinator stated that she had received revised plans showing the relocated exterior light now mounted at the other end of the handicapped ramp. She added the signage was now noted on the plan and the snow removal area had been changed slightly. Christine Quirk asked if there were any outstanding fees. The Coordinator replied that there were none.
Peter Hogan MOVED to confirm that Kimberly Messa and Anthony Eberhardt have complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to operate a physical therapy office from the previous sports shop area of the building at 16 Meetinghouse Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #19/44, and to release the hold on the Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy to be issued by the Building Department. It is the applicant's responsibility to apply to the Building Department for a Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
HEAFIELD, CRAIG (OWNER)
OLDE TIME SAWING & LUMBER, LLC (APPLICANT)
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Portable Saw Mill
Location: 722 River Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/22
Commercial “Com” District
Douglas Hill read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience was the applicant, Tom Miller. No abutters or interested parties were present.
Douglas Hill asked if there were any outstanding issues. The Coordinator replied that there were not. Christine Quirk stated that she had no issues with compliance upon viewing the site. Don Duhaime agreed. Peter Hogan noted for the record that he had only driven by the site and had no issues based on that viewing.
Christine Quirk MOVED to confirm that Craig Heafield (Owner) and Olde Time Sawing and Lumber (Applicant) have complied with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the site plan to operate a portable sawmill from a portion of the site at 722 River Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/22, and to release the hold on the Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy to be issued by the Building Department. It is the applicant's responsibility to apply to the Building Department for a Permit to Operate/Certificate of Occupancy.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
11. A copy of a letter dated April 16, 2008, from Damian Martineau, Damian’s On The River, to Planning Board Members, re: Ice Cream Gazebo located at 737 River Road, was distributed for the Board’s action.
Damian Martineau was present for this item. He explained that on his original site plan a proposed ice cream gazebo was located to the right of the restaurant. He asked if he could obtain a temporary variance or amend his plan to locate the ice cream station on the left hand side until the surface in the area of the permanent gazebo was finished. Damian Martineau added that he would also be using an 8’ X 12’ shed to sell ice cream from until the gazebo was constructed. He added that he understood what he needed to do electrically and had spoken with the Building Inspector. The Coordinator asked how temporary the move would be. After some discussion with the Board, Damian Martineau agreed that he would have the gazebo in its plan approved
location by November 30, 2009. The Board was fine with this date.
Peter Hogan MOVED to amend the approved site plan temporarily in re: a change of the ice cream gazebo location for Damian Martineau, Damian’s On The River, until November 30, 2009 at which time the plan will revert back to its original approved design for the ice cream sales location.
Damian Martineau asked if a separate use permit was required. Douglas Hill did not think so as the ice cream gazebo was part of the original plan.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
14. Discussion, re: Rightway Builders.
The Coordinator stated that as part of the Right Way Builders, Inc., subdivision on Beard Road, a piece of land was lot line adjusted to the neighboring lot belonging to Luneau in order to make Rick Martin’s lot meet the frontage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This lot line adjustment had not, however, been finalized with a deed and a recent sale of the Luneau property had not included this small piece of land. The Coordinator noted that her understanding was that this land still belonged to Rick Martin and, therefore, rendered his lot non-conforming. She also noted that Rick Martin had recently mentioned to the Planning Board Assistant that he wanted the subdivision to “go away”. The Coordinator noted that the applicant could either withdraw
the application (made easier by the fact that the plan was not yet recorded) or the conditions could be allowed to expire and the Board could revoke the plan. She noted that she was unsure if, legally, the Garretsons would also have to withdraw in which case it would be better that the Planning Board revoke. Douglas Hill thought that both parties should be contacted and requested to submit letters asking for revocation. The Board agreed that a letter should be sent to Rick Martin inquiring as to the status of the subdivision and his future plans.
15. Discussion, re: Summer Meeting Schedule.
Douglas Hill stated that he felt that going forward meetings with short agendas could tempt lower attendance. He wondered if it might be more productive to schedule one meeting a month rather than two when this was the case. The Coordinator replied that the Chairman wanted to discuss this topic and discussions on procedures, etc. at a June meeting. She noted to the Board that there would be some more substantial meetings in the summer months if the grant for the Housing/Conservation program came through along with items that the Small Scale Commercial District Committee might present along with Zoning discussions in August in preparation for possible Warrant Articles. She clarified that she did not want the Board to find themselves scrambling at the end of the year
by scheduling themselves too thinly. Douglas Hill thought that the Board could decide the meeting schedule on a month to month basis depending
on what was coming up for topics. The Board’s consensus was that they would have one meeting in June and decide then about July’s schedule.
16. A copy of the revised project narrative for the Housing and Conservation Planning Program, was distributed for the Board’s information.
17. A copy of a letter dated April 30, 2008, from Dwight Sowerby, Esq., re: circular driveway, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion. (confidential and privileged)
The Coordinator stated that Bill Drescher, Esq., and Dwight Sowerby, Esq., had been catching up on some latent issues that had gone unresolved and in the case of this item felt that
the cost to pursue was not worthwhile. She noted that presently there were regulations in place for the Town to support the argument of disallowing circular driveways where in the past and at the time the above noted driveway was installed there was only a “policy”. The Board agreed to let this particular issue rest. (Ouellette, Carriage Road, 19 Carriage Road, TM/L #12/93-30.)
18. A copy of a letter dated April 29, 2008, from Steven Heavener, Executive Director, CRDC, Economic Development Solutions, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator re: scheduling a presentation, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Board determined that this was a premature topic for the Town to consider and should be tabled to a future date.
19. A copy of a letter dated May 1, 2008, from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Joseph Foistner, Seff Enterprises & Holdings, LLC, re: Subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #8/84, Road Performance/Maintenance Bond, was distributed for the Board’s nformation.
The Coordinator explained that this item came up because Mr. Foistner had recently stopped paying on the full bond and had still not submitted a maintenance bond, therefore, Town Counsel would review the issue and get back to the Board.
20. A copy of a letter dated May 1, 2008, from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E., Principal Engineer, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, New Boston Planning Board, re: Roadway Wintering Requirement, SHB Properties, LLC, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Board had no comment.
21. Pre-Construction Meeting Minutes dated April 23, 2008, from Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Twin Bridge Estates, were distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that Tris Gordon and Bob Huettner of Twin Bridge Management, LLC, were successfully working on selling their road frontage lots first and, therefore, wanted to construct the first part of the road 100’ in and continue in a piecemeal fashion. She added that the Town Engineer had no issues with this.
22. A copy of a letter received May 2, 2008, from David J. Preece, executive Director, SNHPC, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Base Year 2005 Socioeconomic Data, was distributed for the Board’s information.
23. Copies of notes from the Planning Board Training, How to Run a Meeting and the
Decision Making Process, April 22, 2008, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, were distributed for the Board’s information. (No copies previously distributed)
The Coordinator explained this was the meeting that Board members could not attend as it was on a Planning Board meeting night.
24. Conference Announcement- Managing Stormwater with Low Impact Development (LID) in Northern New England, Nic to attend, Planning Board interest?
The Coordinator asked that anyone interested in attending let her know. She added that the Chairman may attend. Don Duhaime stated that he might also attend.
25. Read File: Article, titled Affordable Housing-housing decisions favor developers, from the Boston Globe, Saturday, April 12, 2008.
26. Read File: May 2008, Planning Magazine.
27. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Goffstown, re: installation of a wireless telecommunication facility.
28. Read File: Article, titled DES to Adopt Vernal Pool Rules, from Gove Environmental Services, Inc., The Wetland Edge, Spring 2008, Volume 3, Issue 1.
30. Announcement for SNHPC Planners’ Roundtable for June 17, 2008, re: Low Impact Development – Porous Pavement, was distributed for the Board’s information.
31. Copy of the Feasibility Study for Integration of Grades 7 and 8 at NBCS prepared by Dignard Architectural Services, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator explained that while an addition was found to be doable it was not
recommended given the site, therefore, the School Board determined not to move ahead.
Douglas Hill recused himself from the Board as his item was up next.
4. Driveway Permit for Douglas Hill Construction, LLC, Christian Farm Drive, Tax
Map/Lot #’s 5/16-21 & 22, for the Board’s action.
Don Duhaime MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #07-061, Douglas Hill Construction, LLC, Christian Farm Drive, Tax Map/Lot # 5/26-21 & 22, for proposed driveway, 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.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill reclaimed his seat on the Board.
At 9:08 p.m. Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
| 
