TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of May 27, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members, Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime, Peter Hogan, and; ex-officio Christine Quirk. 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, Gordon Carlstrom, Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, Brian Dorwart, Road Committee, John Riendeau, Road Agent, Tom Miller, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Lou Nixon, Mark Suennen, Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator and David Woodbury.
Discussion, re: road standards with Kevin Leonard of Northpoint Engineering, Road Agent, Road Committee, Board of Selectmen and Fire Wards
Present for this discussion were Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, John Riendeau, Road Agent, Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, Gordon Carlstrom and David Woodbury, Selectmen, Brian Dorwart and Tom Miller, Road Committee members.
The Chairman began by noting that there had been a mix up in getting information to everyone prior to this meeting and this evening's discussion would, therefore, be general in nature and a follow up meeting would be held to discuss more specific issues. He asked a clarification question of the Coordinator as to how any proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations would be handled. The Coordinator explained that the Subdivision Regulations were amended by the Planning Board and did not require a town meeting vote.
Gordon Carlstrom began by noting that a major issue to be discussed was increasing the thickness of pavement on town roads. John Riendeau agreed and noted that it had been previously discussed to go to 3" of binder and 1 ½" wearing course. Kevin Leonard noted that many towns used different measurements, such as 2 ½" and 1 ½" or 3" and 1". Gordon Carlstrom thought that 3" and 1 ½" sounded good in order to get as much as possible out of the initial paving of roads.
Gordon Carlstrom moved on to discuss the width of roads and shoulder widths. He stated that feeder roads should remain 22' wide with 4' shoulders no matter what. He further noted that a cul-de-sac or a cluster subdivision might be suitable for a reduced width for traffic calming effects, although he knew that police and fire would want the full width. John Riendeau stated that he and Kevin Leonard had discussed cul-de-sacs to a certain extent and they were going to come up with a standard design for a turnaround that would accommodate buses and fire trucks. Gordon Carlstrom noted that if a turnaround was designed to fit a fire truck a school bus would have no problem negotiating it. David Woodbury asked what the best argument was to reduce widths of roads,
wondering if it was purely an aesthetic issue. He did not think that there would be much visible difference between pavement of 18' vs. pavement of 20'. Peter Hogan stated that the issue was not so much the right-of-way as it was the paved surface. He noted that narrow pavement felt claustrophobic to drivers and tended to slow people down. He thought that the right-of-way should remain the same no matter the width of the traveled way. Gordon Carlstrom thought that reducing shoulder width could also be discussed. Tom Miller spoke from experience from road building projects with NH DOT and noted that narrower pavement caused people to drive closer to the edge and break up the tar at the edge of the road. He stated that he had never built a road less than 20' wide. John Riendeau thought that 22' should be the minimum. Peter Hogan stated that he did not want to give the drive through car driver what they wanted and was not against
narrowing the pavement. Tom Miller pointed out that Bedford Road was extremely narrow and windy and people drove too fast on it every day.
Doug Hill thought that the discussion of reduced widths would be for roads with minimal traffic, such as cul-de-sacs. Tom Miller stated that on small roads when buses and larger vehicles took turns they would use the shoulder to drive on. Stu Lewin stated that for the vehicle trips per day and the speeds of the cars upon them Popple and Swanson Roads were much too wide. Tom Miller stated that the "extra" width was of great benefit in the winter for snow banks and snow storage. John Riendeau reiterated his desire to see roads remain 22' wide, noting that an 8' wide truck with mirrors adding 1 - 1 ½' needed the full 11' lane width to maneuver. Peter Hogan stated that he was not talking about narrowing roads like Bedford Road or through roads.
John Riendeau asked which roads in town would never see an oil delivery truck or other large vehicle needing to access at some point. He thought that a narrower road with a greater likelihood of broken edges would create more maintenance costs in the long run.
Doug Hill asked what the cons would be if a road was narrowed. Don Duhaime stated that Daylily Lane could have been a lot narrower. John Riendeau disagreed. Peter Hogan stated that the problem with Daylily Lane was not that it turned out the way it did, but that the Road Agent had knowledge about the required width of the road that did not come out soon enough in the process and caused the Planning Board to waste considerable time and energy on a project that was not constructed the way it was designed. He stated that he understood why the field changes were made and pointed out that since construction there had been none of the washout issues that had occurred when the old configuration was in place.
John Riendeau suggested that a through road should be constructed at a minimum 24'. Doug Hill was curious as to whether this would apply through a residential neighborhood and John Riendeau replied that it would. He noted that some towns were going to 28' - 30'. David Woodbury asked what the criteria might be for applying a reduced road width. The Chairman stated that there was information in the packet distributed prior to the meeting. Don Duhaime thought that with a certain small number of trips per day, on a rural, dead end road the width could be reduced as long as the turnaround was constructed to accept trucks. The Board mentioned Indian Falls Road as a road that looked too wide. Tom Miller suggested that slopes could be allowed at 2:1.
Kevin Leonard explained that the Town's requirement was for 3:1 in order for the slopes to be maneuverable, mowable and to make stabilization easier. Peter Hogan pointed out that anything over 3:1 needed guardrail.
Kevin Leonard noted that a 4' shoulder as required in New Boston was the biggest he had seen for a town. He noted that the wider openings were caused somewhat by the 4' shoulder. He stated that other towns used 2' or 3'. Kevin Leonard thought that 22' of pavement with 2' shoulders or 24' pavement with curbs would be appropriate widths. Peter Hogan wondered if the pavement thickness could be increased at the edge of pavement to avoid pavement breaking at the edge. Gordon Carlstrom thought that 22' of pavement with 2' shoulders would be fine with him.
At this point in the meeting the Selectmen had to leave to attend a Police Officer swearing in ceremony at the Police Department.
Peter Hogan stated that he had no great interest in reducing shoulder width, noting that there was a benefit for snow plowing with a wide shoulder. John Riendeau stated he would rather see a narrower shoulder than narrower pavement. Doug Hill stated that in a small neighborhood it would be possible for someone to pull over or stop to let someone by if necessary. Brian Dorwart stated that the town did not want stopped cars to be left on blind corners. Doug Hill did not think that new roads in town would have blind corners due to the regulation requirements for construction. Brian Dorwart stated that there were blind corners even on Indian Falls Road depending on how fast one drove around them.
John Riendeau stated that no one could talk him out of 22' of pavement and he did not think they looked like superhighways. He thought that even if the width was cut down to 20' with a 10' lane on each side there would only be a foot of clearance for big trucks passing each other without someone having to pull over onto the edge of the road. He stated that 11' per lane was a good width. John Riendeau further pointed out that plow trucks were approximately 13' wide with a wing so cutting down to a 10' lane they would be encroaching on oncoming traffic. He noted in response to a question from Peter Hogan that the Highway Department tried to plow snow back 1' - 2' onto the shoulder.
Doug Hill stated that the only thing that could convince him to go with a narrower road would be a small neighborhood with fewer homes. Don Duhaime asked if the town could continue to use 22' of pavement but require developers to plant trees along the roadside to enhance the sides of the road. Doug Hill worried about getting into driveway sight distance issues in that case. John Riendeau stated that trees like that reached maturity and the limbs then began to be his problem. He also noted that the homeowners ended up fighting with him over cutting down limbs or whole trees when they started to become a problem. Don Duhaime thought that the trees would dress up these subdivisions and noted that a 2 ½' tree would take a number of years to reach maturity and
start causing the problems that John was referring to.
Peter Hogan noted that it was evident that trees lining sidewalks in towns like Nashua and Manchester were doing damage from root upheaval, a maintenance issue, even though the trees were aesthetically pleasing and planted for that purpose. Kevin Leonard noted that there were ornamental varieties of trees that could be used for such scenarios and reached maximum heights of approximately 15’ to 20’.
Peter Hogan asked the Road Agent his thoughts on whether he would choose to widen roads or leave well enough alone if it were his decision. John Riendeau replied that in the examples of Byam and Wilson Hill Roads it would have been a better idea to widen those roads to 24’ because they were heavily used as “cut through” roads, however, very few roads in the town met the same criteria and he felt that 80% of subdivision roads were either loop roads or cul-de-sacs, therefore, would not warrant widening. Brian Dorwart stated that he hoped a road like Byam Road was never permitted again in the Town as he felt it was unsafe and did not meet any proper road standards. Peter Hogan noted that the Board had tried to prevent Byam Road. The Road Agent
clarified that Byam Road was grandfathered prior to 1984 when the Town did not have the road regulations they had currently. Peter Hogan added that the Board had to talk Thibeault Corporation into installing a guard rail along steep sections of Byam Road.
Peter Hogan asked Brian Dorwart his thought on the narrower road concept. Brian Dorwart recalled that there had been a recommendation for an 18’ wide road with 2 or 3 homes being constructed on it years back but noted that any narrow road like that would still need to have enough right-of-way to open it up if it became necessary to do so. He added that he did not think that any type of a through road or two lane road should have a narrow width design. Douglas Hill noted that he did not think the right-of-way requirement would change no matter what the Town did with road widths. Brian Dorwart agreed and added that a lot had to do with controlling the 50’ right-of-way and also considerations for plow trucks.
Don Duhaime noted that everyone in the discussion seemed to agree that the thickness of road surfaces could be increased. He asked if that requirement could be added into the proposed Subdivision Regulations public hearing later in the evening. The Coordinator replied that the proposal would need to be properly noticed to the public and the Board might consider adjourning to another meeting to iron out the details of that addition. Peter Hogan wondered how Kevin Leonard would reconcile reduced road standards recommendations, i.e., road narrowing with his professional opinion. The Chairman asked how other communities doing the same with narrow roads were resolving the same issues such as plowing. Kevin Leonard offered that there were conflicting views on the
subject of road narrowing with lower impact development and aesthetics where such practices were often seen on private road systems such as senior housing developments. He noted that narrowed roads eliminated the possibility for sidewalks and made pedestrian traffic more challenged. Kevin Leonard added that there were concerns from towns that narrow private roads could some day be petitioned to be public and would then be too narrow to accommodate town vehicles/equipment. He noted that there were possibilities to offset that such as through roads, sprinkler systems in homes to lessen the need for fire fighting vehicles, etc., and narrower roads did statistically make for slower traffic in neighborhood settings. He added that on through roads, narrowness would not have the same effect as vehicles would travel at a “through road’ pace. The Chairman asked Kevin Leonard if he knew of examples of towns that had adopted narrower road
standards. Kevin Leonard asked for a definition of “narrower” as New Boston roads were 22’ wide with 4’ shoulders. John Riendeau noted that he had literature from John Bunting regarding the widths of the Town’s emergency vehicles, mirror spans, etc. Douglas Hill stated that he did not think that a fire truck would hit anything by traveling along a narrower road in the Town. Kevin Leonard stated that he could do a quick information gathering on what other towns were doing regarding narrower road widths and get the information to the Board prior to their next meeting. Brian Dorwart added that some towns were incorporating round-abouts and speed bumps on subdivision roads to better control traffic speed and even though he did not think speed bumps would work in New Boston there should be options for the Town to consider. Peter Hogan thought that if the Town could keep revenues from speeding tickets that would be a
workable solution to speeding. Tom Miller commented that he had worked many years with radar/speed traps during DOT construction projects and it did no good in slowing traffic speeds. Brian Dorwart noted that the town of Durham, NH, was using State TIF (Tax Increment Financing) funding which was a tax on developments that had stood up in court. Kevin Leonard added that Exit 10 off NH Route 93 in Hooksett, NH, was an example of TIF funding along with Cabelas off NH Route 3 and that TIF funding was usually geared toward commercial development.
The Board decided to schedule further discussion on these subjects at the next meeting on June 24, 2008, at 6:30 p.m.
At 7:40 p.m. the Planning Board took a 5 minute break.
PUBLIC HEARING Adjourned from May 13, 2008
On the adoption of proposed Subdivision Regulations
(SEE SEPARATE NOTICE)
The Chairman clarified that Board members had likely a chance to review the changes made to the draft of the proposed amendments from the last meeting. Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator what storm year Stormwater Management detention basins were currently figured on. The Coordinator replied that there was no written requirement and sometimes they were figured on 10 years while other times they were based on 25. The asked Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, who was present for an upcoming hearing, his thoughts. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that NHDES currently required a basis on a 10 year storm. He added that newer structures were focusing more on infiltration than detention and that there were two elements involved: how much to hold back during a peak storm while
still providing adequate infiltration. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, clarified that infiltration on a 50 year storm was not feasible. Douglas Hill noted that he did not want the Board to create a red herring in stipulating requirements for detention basins that could end up being too large for what they were being required to do. The Chairman gave a copy of the proposed Subdivision Regulations to Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, for his review. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, reviewed the language and noted to the Board that it would be difficult to get a detention basin that mitigated all storms. He noted that the language did, however, seem consistent with industry standards. The Coordinator noted that the language included the term “evaluated” versus “designed”, i.e., detention basins could be designed based on what they could handle from the surrounding area on a case by case basis.
Don Duhaime MOVED to adopt the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations as presented at the public hearing. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Informational session with Louis G. Nixon to discuss a potential 2 lot subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #7/58-1, Lyndeborough Road.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, and Louis Nixon were present for this discussion. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that the proposed 13 acres subdivision was located on Lyndeborough Road, approximately 1 mile west of NH Route 13. He noted that there was not enough frontage to subdivide two front lots, therefore, one front lot and one backlot with 50’ of frontage to stay with the existing house and driveway was being considered. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that there was some steep area where the driveway for the second lot would be proposed, therefore, Mr. Nixon was considering a shared curb cut that would split at the right-of-way line which would require an easement to come across and tie in with the existing driveway and then follow natural contours. He added that
test pits had been done on the site and noted that the second lot could sustain its own individual driveway, however, this would require significant excavation and removal of the steep area noted. Louis Nixon stated that he was also hoping to minimize curb cuts along Lyndeborough Road by this proposal, since much of the area along the road in this location was used for public access parking to trails and fishing. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that although there were no jurisdictional wetlands on the site there was a natural swale that drained to an existing culvert during heavy rain events and they did not want to impede that storm flow with excavation. He noted that the sandy soil provided good infiltration but did see periodic storm flow.
Peter Hogan asked the frontage measurements for the proposed lots. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that there was 50’ of frontage for the proposed backlot and approximately 250’ on the front lot. He added that the applicant did have a question regarding widening the 50’ strip as it approached the rear of the backlot which he would like to do in order to accommodate a workable driveway. The Chairman asked what the measure was at the widest point. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it was approximately 140’. Douglas Hill asked how far in the proposed driveway split was located off the common curb cut. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that they would like the driveway to split immediately off the curb cut. Louis Nixon
added that they would like to come over with a smooth curve off the entrance for the proposed driveway, grass in the portion of the existing driveway on site that would not be part of the design, and use its gravel for the new construction. Don Duhaime stated that he felt that a pattern for future subdivision was emerging from the information this discussion was providing. Louis Nixon replied that after the proposed subdivision he did not see how any further subdivision could be possible on the site. Peter Hogan noted that this could be possible with a lot line adjustment. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that there was a substantial amount of conservation land that went with the parent lot and that to cut a Town road through the site would require significant embankments. He then brought the plan to the table for the Board to review it more closely. Douglas Hill asked Louis Nixon if he would be willing to note no further subdivision on the plan. Louis Nixon replied that he
would.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that no significant cuts or fills would be required for the driveways. Peter Hogan commented that in his opinion, any driveway that ran across another property was a bad design. The Chairman and Don Duhaime agreed. Douglas Hill stated that he knew that the Board had had much discussion regarding shared driveways and splits off common curb cuts that were to be a maximum 100’ in but from a Town standpoint he did not see why this was an issue anyway. Peter Hogan replied that based on that view what was the point of Zoning as the Board was entrusted to accept good designs. Douglas Hill noted that New Boston was one of the few towns in the State that had an issue with shared driveways and he did not think that they represented
poor planning. Don Duhaime noted that the majority of the Board shared Peter Hogan’s view. Douglas Hill recognized this but noted that it was individual opinion. Peter Hogan noted that the issue in this case was not so much the common curb cut proposed but the fact that a driveway crossed another property and an easement would be required. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, remarked that Chestnut Hill in New Boston was an example of an area whose house lots had many shared driveways and he had never heard of a problem amongst neighbors in all the years he had lived there. Douglas Hill did not think that it would be an example of good planning in the case of this plan to blast out the existing steep terrain on site and impact the area versus constructing a shared driveway. He agreed that that there might be other places and times where this would not be appropriate. Peter Hogan asked if the backlot strip could not exceed 50’. Earl Sandford,
LLS, PE, stated that he would like clarification on that point. The Coordinator noted that the strip for the backlot had to be exactly 50’ wide and had to get behind a front lot and was an exact measure, however, there was no specified width for the back of the strip past the 250’ setback. Peter Hogan asked Louis Nixon if his parents’ lot abutted the site and its size. Louis Nixon replied that his parents owned the abutting lot jointly. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that the abutting lot was 100+ acres and extended all the way to Old Coach Road. Peter Hogan asked if “fanning” the measure out toward the rear of the backlot was acceptable. The Coordinator replied that one could then get into the interpretation of whether the backlot sat behind the front lot. Peter Hogan stated that his personal thinking was if a lot line adjustment was done with Louis Nixon’s parents that would then put the common drive
on his property. Louis Nixon replied that that option was not on the table. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that this would bring the lot line down to the 200’ square and at the end of the culvert. He added that they were trying to stay out of an existing swale also and did not think that an easement situation could be avoided. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, asked if the Board would offer a consensus on the design. Douglas Hill asked if the Driveway Regulations specified boundary lines. The Coordinator replied that the preferred configuration for shared driveways was at the lot line but there were also options for easements. The Chairman asked Christine Quirk her thoughts. Christine Quirk replied that she could see both sides of the argument but was torn on an opinion. Louis Nixon noted a corner of the site that came down to a low spot and then a box culvert surrounded by 4’ to 5’ embankments, therefore, it was not
necessarily an area that anyone who owned that lot would do anything with. He noted that he maintained the existing driveway currently. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that in the 52 years that Chestnut Hill Road had been developed he had not heard of one issue due to the shared driveways and these driveways had preserved the surrounding fields and character of the land which would not have been the case if this Board was seated at the time those lots had been approved. Christine Quirk asked if there were easements on the Chestnut Hill property for those driveways. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that there were. He added that this Board had done a proper job over time clarifying easement language and if there were neighborly disagreements such as one lot owner cutting another neighbor’s tree if, for example, it was shading his driveway, then this would be considered a blatant disregard for property. Douglas Hill agreed.
Don Duhaime stated that he could live with Louis Nixon’s plan as he had agreed to no further subdivision. Peter Hogan asked why Louis Nixon would not consider doing an easement over more than 20’ if he had to do one anyway. Louis Nixon replied that the more encroaching an easement, the less appealing the land was for sale. The Chairman stated that his issue was that he did not like these scenarios, however, if there was nothing in the Subdivision Regulations to prevent it, he set his preferences aside. Peter Hogan stated that it was part of the Board’s job to apply their experience when these scenarios presented themselves. Douglas Hill added that common sense was also warranted. Louis Nixon asked if subjectiveness or objectiveness was
the intent. Peter Hogan replied that both were the intent. He added that this plan did not look threatening but it depended on different factors. Peter Hogan felt that the corner slice of land
being discussed was worthless. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it was necessary to meet frontage requirements to enable a front and back lot. Louis Nixon added that this also created the lowest impact scenario and seemed the best way to approach the issue of not wanting to impact the surrounding area which was used by the public for trail parking, fishing, etc. Peter Hogan noted that his issue was more with the lot line than with the shared curb cut. Douglas Hill noted that if the Board felt that strongly then they should change the regulations. Peter Hogan replied that a regulation could not be written for everything. He added that he expected Douglas Hill would have this opinion because he had experienced a similar issue on his own subdivision.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, thanked the Board for their input this evening.
At 8:45 p.m. the Planning Board took a 10 minute break
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 27, 2008
1. Driveway Permit for Thibeault Corporation of N.E., (Steven LaBranche), Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-4, for the Board’s action. (Compliance check prior to meeting)
The Chairman stated that he had not looked at the correct lot when going to view the driveway. Douglas Hill added that he had also looked at the wrong lot. The Coordinator offered that the Board could establish whether or not they were willing to make a determination on the driveway at a site walk since they would tentatively be meeting once a month this summer. A site walk was scheduled for Tuesday, June 3, 2008, at 6:30 p.m.
2. Driveway Permit application for Thibeault Corporation of N.E., (Steve LaBranche), Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot # 6/41-2, for the Board’s approval.
The Coordinator clarified that this item was a non-issue as it had been addressed in March, 2008.
3. A copy of a faxed letter dated May 20, 2008, from Heidi L. Akerman, to New Boston Planning Board, re: 252 Bunker Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot # 1/12, request for extension of conditions subsequent deadline, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator explained that the applicant wanted to make sure that they were prepared before a scheduled site walk and that the walk could be noticed before the June, 2008 meeting. Because the Board had only one meeting scheduled in June they scheduled the site walk ahead of that date (see item #4) and had no issues on the extension request.
Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the conditions subsequent for Heidi L. Akerman, 252 Bunker Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot # 1/12, to August 30, 2008. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
4. Schedule a site walk for Bunker Hill Stables, 252 Bunker Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot # 1/12.
A site walk was scheduled for June 10, 2008, at 6:30 p.m.
5. Discussion with Heather Alton, re: Bilodeau cordwood business, Joe English Road.
(Drive by for progress check prior to meeting)
Heather Alton was not present. Don Duhaime stated that he had viewed very little change to the site and did not think that Mr. Bilodeau was cutting quickly and the site looked more like a commercial staging area than a home business. Peter Hogan noted that the Board had not imposed restrictions at the time of the approval and could not go back. The Coordinator clarified that the Board could go back on the basis of a material misunderstanding. Douglas Hill commented that he did not think that the situation would change no matter what was imposed.
6. Application for Appointment to the Planning Board, received May 22, 2008, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Coordinator stated that because the applicant was not present they might consider scheduling a time in the future to speak with him.
7. A copy of an email dated May 20, 2008, from the NH Office of Energy and Planning, re: HCPP Update was distributed for the Board’s information.
8. The Commercial Committee meeting minutes of May 19, 2008 were distributed for the Board’s information.
9. A copy of an article from New Hampshire Town and City magazine, May 2008, titled But, It’s Grandfathered! Six Common Myths about Nonconforming Uses, By C. Christine Fillmore, was distributed for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator stated that the minutes from the last meeting had been emailed to Board members for approval at the next meeting.
The Coordinator noted that the Board had received packets on Twin Bridge Management, LLC. Don Duhaime recalled during a prior discussion with the applicants that they had offered a 250’ buffer and asked if the plan identified this location. The Coordinator replied that this was correct and it was shown on the plan encompassed by a Shoreland Protection Easement. She added that the applicants had done no clearing/cutting, etc., with the 150’ buffer which was what the Shoreland Protection Act called for. Douglas Hill stated that he had assumed that when the applicants had offered a 250’ buffer they would be doing nothing within that range. The Coordinator stated that she could run the legal angles by Town Counsel but what they were doing met the
requirements of the Shoreland Protection Act as only at the 150’ measure did they need to stop cutting. She added that within the extra 100’ the regulations were very loose.
Christine Quirk noted as an aside that the applicants had been served by the Selectmen with a Cease and Desist order for graveling outside their indicated area on site.
At 9:20 p.m. Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk Minutes Approved:
| 
