 |
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of July 22, 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 Gordon Carlstrom. 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, Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, John Riendeau, Road Agent, Dan MacDonald, Brian Dorwart, Road Committee, Heidi Akerman, David Clukay, Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, Lou Nixon, Janet Nixon, Steve Young, John and Rita Young, Heidi Risman Jones, Peter Clark, Joan Blais, William and Jason Lambert, Joseph Cabral, Brian McKenna, David Teed, Karen and James Roach and Carol Barton, Esq.
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, Brian Dorwart, Road Committee and Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief.
The Chairman review the topics discussed at the previous meeting and clarified that the Board was in agreement regarding the maximum grade at intersections. He asked how the final wording for the Regulations would be pulled together. The Coordinator replied that once the Board had finalized what they wanted she would work with Kevin Leonard, PE, on the language.
The Chairman stated that the Board was in agreement at the previous meeting regarding depth of pavement and the third point regarded the cross slope for shoulders. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that he thought the Board had previously agreed to 4% but had seen 5% in his materials review, noting that either was fine. Douglas Hill asked if the Board had agreed to shortening the shoulders and if either percentage would make a difference in that regard. The Road Agent noted that it would make a difference if there was less packing, however, in speaking with the Selectmen they preferred that the shoulders be narrowed versus the pavement. Douglas Hill added that this should also make for easier plowing as it would allow the snow to get off the road better. The Road Agent
agreed, noting that the snow would fall into the ditchline more easily even though there might be less shoulder for the plow trucks to ride on. He noted that whether the percentage was 4% or 5% the point was that a steeper slope would get the water off more quickly. The Chairman clarified that the road was 2% to the crown and then he had written 4% in his notes. The Board agreed that 4% was acceptable. Peter Hogan clarified that the percentage was two times what the road percentage was (at 2%).
The Chairman stated that the fourth point for review was the typical roadway detail. Kevin Leonard, PE, produced examples of ½” per foot or 4% which is what they had just discussed. He noted that the Regulations stated that the fore slope into the ditch be 3:1 and the back slope 2:1. Kevin Leonard, PE, added that in reviewing different applications he had seen some propose 4:1 and some 3:1 and this was what ultimately created the depth of the ditch. He showed both examples and overlayed a typical driveway with 12” culvert and 12” cover. Douglas Hill noted that in the case of Indian Falls the edge of the shoulder to the ditchline was flat and was likely 4:1. He added that in his opinion steeper was better. Kevin Leonard, PE,
showed the 3:1 version in his next example. Douglas Hill thought this was adequate. Don
Duhaime agreed noting that the cover should be fine with grading and seeding. Peter Hogan thought that the requirement for the depth of fill over a culvert at 1’ was a strange one as this could not always be accomplished and it was likely never checked. The Road Agent stated that the amount of fill mirrored the size of a culvert, i.e., a 12” culvert got 12” of cover, 18” culvert 18” of cover, etc. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that 1’ was the minimum specification for cover on culverts. Peter Hogan noted that in relation to this point his concern was having a system that worked and did not need waivers. The Road Agent clarified that for the example of a 2’ ditch with a 1’ pipe, 1’ of cover was unavoidable. Peter Hogan asked if anyone thought there was 1’ of cover on culverts in Indian Falls. The Chairman did not think so. Peter Hogan recalled bringing up this point to no avail and noted that it seemed to be a regulation that could not always be fulfilled as in some instance it
would be necessary to excavate down to make a ditchline deep enough to accommodate covering it. He added that what the Board was addressing this evening would seem to fix that issue. Douglas Hill thought that what the Board was revising would not change the issue that much such as was the case on his road, Christian Farm Drive. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that on Christian Farm Drive the slope was 3:1 for 4’, therefore, a ditchline 1.3’ deep. He added that some slope was lost to driveway cover and in the case of Christian Farm Drive its grade allowed for adequate cover. Douglas Hill noted that on a flatter road there could be more of an issue. Peter Hogan noted that when water ran down the road to Indian Falls it never made it to the rip rap because of the height of the shoulders. The Road Agent agreed that they did not have enough slope. Douglas Hill noted that steepening them would have been a major improvement. Peter
Hogan stated that the rip rap had the illusion of being higher than the road even though it may not be. He felt that tonight’s discussion would help correct such situations going forward. The Chairman clarified that the Board’s consensus was 3:1 slopes and shoulders at 2’. Don Duhaime asked why, if this was the case, the Board would then not be considering 12” crushed gravel versus 6” when they were increasing the asphalt layer. He explained that his concern was for primary roads with heavy equipment traffic and felt that 12” was warranted. Kevin Leonard, PE, asked Don Duhaime if he was referring to subdivision roads or primary roads. Don Duhaime replied that if a proposed road was to be a primary road it should have a 12” base and that other towns were doing the same. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that the measure varied and for subdivision roads 6” to 12” was pretty common. He added
that the Road Committee and Master Plan recommendation was to classify roads in Town. Don Duhaime thought this had been done. The Coordinator replied that it had not. Don Duhaime stated that he had heard that the Road Committee and Road Agent had classified roads in Town as 1, 2 or 3. The Coordinator replied that this had been suggested but never talked about as a whole or adopted. Douglas Hill noted that any road with over 400 cars went to 6” of upper base which was no different than what the Master Plan called for. The Road Agent stated that he preferred 6” crushed bank stone with 4” minus crushed rock underneath as that was the worry on heavily traveled roads (support base). Kevin Leonard, PE, agreed that doing this would have a lot of impact on the strength of the road. The Chairman clarified that 12” of bank run gravel with larger stone afforded more strength. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that the
would opt to increase the bank run before the crushed gravel and added that crushed gravel was gradable at 6”. The Road Agent felt this was worth some thought. The Chairman asked if Kevin Leonard, PE, could pull some more information together on this for the next meeting. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that he would.
The Chairman asked if there were any other questions regarding the topic of roadway details and there were none. He stated that the next topic was cul-de-sac dimensions. Kevin Leonard, PE, had handouts that the Board had received ahead of time with the first page detailing what an existing cul-de-sac culvert design for the Town resembled (130’ minimum diameter, 50’ island) He added that in assuming 4’ shoulders this would create a 47’ green island that did not meet the Regulation which was one reason why cul-de-sac roads proposed lately were all larger than this example. Kevin Leonard, PE, added that in regard to school buses, fire emergency equipment and Highway Department equipment, 22’ of pavement with the design presented would accommodate
good turning radii. Douglas Hill asked if the recent decision to cut the shoulders to 2’ would affect this design. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that it would increase the size of the island slightly and was an incidental change. He then discussed offset cul-de-sac designs which he said would allow developers to work better with natural features along a road, avoid wetlands, Steep Slopes and have a better lot layout. The Chairman asked the Road Agent his thoughts on these designs. The Road Agent replied that he thought they were better. Peter Hogan asked the Road Agent if he preferred a green island over paved. The Road Agent replied that he did because it would be easier to plow. Douglas Hill asked if a cul-de-sac with trees was still an option such as on Pheasant Lane. Kevin Leonard, PE, clarified that these were minimum requirement designs he was presented so trees could still be an option. The Road Agent stated that
he would like to get away from the smaller radius cul-de-sacs going forward.
The Chairman stated that the next point regarded cisterns. Kevin Leonard, PE, stated that the Fire Department was going to be hearing a presentation by Michie Corp. out of Henniker, NH, that offered pre-cast cisterns and would be deciding whether they would offer this type as an alternative but that any decisions they made on this would affect how the regulations would be modified. The Chairman felt that this discussion should be tabled until more information came in.
The Chairman stated that the Road Committee would be reviewing the material that was presented thus far and get back to the Board with any changes they suggested. He added that there was a note from the Selectmen in tonight’s materials regarding road width at 22’. Gordon Carlstrom explained that the Selectmen preferred taking the width from the shoulders versus the paved road for maintainability purposes. The Chairman asked what should be done about the fact that the Board did not have a classification list for roads in the Town. The Road Agent replied that there was an “unofficial” list that the Highway Department put together and referenced. Brian Dorwart, Road Committee, stated that a parallel issue to this related to the Master Plan
which called for appropriate road standards on tertiary roads based on traffic loads. Don Duhaime stated that this had been his point all along. Brian Dorwart stated that they had a list of roads in town with traffic counts, definitions, etc., that they had provided to the Planning Board a year and a half or two years ago that they could copy to the Board again. The Coordinator noted that given the previous discussion on pavements and bases they might want to reconsider their classifications. Douglas Hill asked if Bedford Road was redone if it would be held to the new standards for primary roads that had been discussed for “new” roads. Kevin Leonard, PE, replied that it would be even in the case for offsite improvement if a subdivision was proposed off Bedford Road or had frontage on Bedford Road. Brian Dorwart noted that the sub-base was more important on primary roads. Peter Hogan stated that Don Duhaime had spoken to this
point before Brian Dorwart arrived and suggested that the upper base be increased from 6” to 12”. Brian Dorwart stated that the Road Committee would review tonight’s materials and have feedback within a week. Don Duhaime noted that other towns were using 12” on sub and upper base. He added that it would be important to qualify that the base materials were of high quality. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that bank run gravels used today were all sampled for quality and the presence of silt, etc. He felt also that it made sense to increase crushed gravel base for primary roads. Peter Hogan noted that drainage requirements were already in place as well. Kevin Leonard, PE, added that if choosing 6” of crushed gravel over bank run, the stronger road would be the one with 18” bank run as that benefited the strength of a road over crushed gravel. Douglas Hill clarified that if they made a change to primary roads
it would be 18” bank run gravel with 12” crushed gravel (currently it was 18” bank run/6” crushed gravel). The Road Agent clarified that this would be for main artery roads.
Dan MacDonald, Fire Chief, stated that he had spoken with Tom French who would be doing a presentation on cistern solutions at the next Fire Ward meeting. He added that Kevin Leonard, PE, may also be attending and that it was open to anyone interested. The Chairman suggested that this discussion be tabled until that meeting was held. Dan MacDonald stated that he would be interested to learn if there were better options to longevity of cisterns past 5 or 10 years. Kevin Leonard, PE, noted that the Henniker company had a local patent on their product. Dan MacDonald noted that the longer the warranty the less likely there was value added as it was the initial quality provided that was the key. He added that New Boston was the standard followed by the country
thanks to John Bunting’s work and is why NFPA came to New Boston for their annual meeting last year.
The Coordinator returned to the subject of road classifications and explained that in the old Master Plan there had been a listing of roads in Town, their quality, and their priority for improvements which the Planning Board would reference at the time the CIP Committee convened. She added that the Board was interested in obtaining an update to this list since they could also review it if a developer proposed, for example, a subdivision off an existing road to see where that road fell in terms of upgrade necessity as its prioritized position could support an argument for some development proposals being “scattered and premature”. John Riendeau replied that the Highway Department had a similar list in a different format and noted when roads in Town had been paved. He noted that they had tried to compile a “master plan” for paving, grinding, overlaying and top grading. The Chairman asked if John Riendeau could bring a copy of this list to the next Planning Board meeting.
John Riendeau replied that he could. He added that asphalt prices had greatly increased, therefore, the Highway Department had attempted to rework this list to better fit their budget, but he would supply a copy of what they had prepared. The Coordinator added that the Board was also interested in what order Town roads needed culvert replacement and ditchline work. John Riendeau stated when he had the option to overlay a road he did so and if not he would grind it and replace all the culverts. The Coordinator asked if the current list included dirt roads slated for paving in the future. John Riendeau replied that it did not. Peter Hogan remarked that the Planning Board was very interested in what might be forecast for dirt roads in the Town as they usually were in need of ditchline work. The Chairman asked if John Riendeau could bring the information he had available to the next meeting so that the board could review it. John
Riendeau replied that he could.
CLUKAY, DAVID D. & AKERMAN, HEIDI L.
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Horse Boarding and Riding Stable
Location: Saunders Hill and Bunker Hill Roads
Tax Map/Lot # 1/12
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicants Heidi Akerman and David Clukay . No abutters or interested parties were present.
The Chairman stated that at the most recent compliance site walk (second held) some site work was still not fully completed. He noted that the applicants had since submitted a slightly different version of the original plan. Heidi Akerman stated that 2 exterior lights were added to the revised plan and she had five copies of the newly engineered plan. Peter Hogan asked that a plan be mounted on the presentation easel for viewing. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, did so. Heidi Akerman stated that she had brought with her pictures of work that had been completed at the site since the most recent site walk. The Chairman clarified that the manure pit along with the northwest and southwest drainage outlets were the remaining issues of the plan. Earl Sandford,
LLS, PE, noted that the plan had been revised to reflect the measures taken to prevent drainage from flowing into the manure pit. Peter Hogan interjected that he would like to first have discussion on the more minor issues, one of which was the drainage proposed along a stone wall along with the elimination of gutters from the barn roof. He asked how the revised plan could support that the changes made from the approved plan offered a more acceptable solution as to categorically change a plan was questionable. The Chairman asked if a plan such as the one before them tonight had been submitted as part of the package the Board originally approved. The Coordinator replied that this had been the case. Peter Hogan stated that the approved plan had consisted of a manure pit that could store 4 months of material. Heidi Akerman returned to the subject of the barn roof and stated that after the original plan was approved she had discovered through some
research that the size of the roof could cause the gutters to collapse, therefore, they opted for perimeter and French drains. Peter Hogan stated that the approved plan proposed gutters, not perimeter drainage, therefore, compliance was presently impossible because the Board did not have an approved plan that matched the site. He asked Heidi Akerman how she could convince the Board that the change in the drainage design was superior to the gutter design they approved. He added that two drainage issues on each corner of the barn were related to this subject. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that he had designed the plan to shed water from the roof and out to ditches and that the advantage of shedding or using a trench was to minimize point load. He added that before he became involved in the project French drains had been determined for purposes of shedding water to the outside and felt that this was an adequate design. Peter Hogan asked Earl
Sandford, LLS, PE, if he felt that the revised design was at least equal in adequacy to the approved design. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that he felt the revised design was better as it was not hard piping a lot of water. Douglas Hill noted that gutters sometimes presented freezing issues also. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, agreed. He stated that the French drain came into play as an answer to this and felt that these should be installed whether gutters were used or not. Douglas Hill asked Heidi Akerman if the gutters had been her idea. Heidi Akerman replied that they had been the advice of a barn contractor but after they were put on the plan she had received other advice that a roof of the barn’s size might have issues with gutters such as ice dams and that it might be better to opt for perimeter drainage. Peter Hogan clarified that water exiting the perimeter drainage pipes went out the back of the site to a rip rap bed.
Douglas Hill noted that an additional pipe hung over an existing wall like a spigot. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, clarified that this was a 4” pipe extended over heavy stone. Peter Hogan stated that this pipe could not end before the wall as that would result in hydraulic pressure which would cause the wall to blow out. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that the free flow of the water allowed it to slow down and not cause any erosion. Peter Hogan stated that he could not envision how this pipe could be engineered to not go over the wall. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that this pipe was envisioned to at least extend to the face of the boulders in the wall. Peter Hogan stated that this was an adequate design as long as there was a wide enough rip rap bed to eliminate the energy of the flow and that in terms of maintaining itself, the simpler, the better. The Chairman clarified that the northwest corner of the barn with three
drainage pipes was acceptable as was the rip rap at the exit point and at the southwest corner the piping would be extended from the wall with treatment at the bottom. Peter Hogan stated that the Board was providing consensus on how they would approve the plan. Don Duhaime asked if the french drain and the drainage along the westerly side of the barn might experience freezing issues in winter months. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that grading was done away from the barn. Don Duhaime noted that his concern was water flow over frozen ground during certain times of the year at which times french drains may not suffice. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that piping installed at the bottom should keep the stone dry and the snow should act as an insulator. Peter Hogan added that because the passageway around the barn did not seem wide enough it would likely need plowing in the event of snow which would be a self cleaning feature. Earl Sandford,
LLS, PE, noted that regarding the sheet flow situation it was nice and level from edge to edge and if water from the roof could not go down there would be a ½” of sheet flow over the wall. He added that to keep a level lip and minimize erosion crushed stone or preferably, grass could be added. Peter Hogan felt that the likelihood of the system presented being workable was very good and he did not anticipate freezing issues. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, asked Heidi Akerman if the barn would be heated. Heidi Akerman replied that it would not be. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, reiterated that before the drop off embankment to the boulder wall there should be at least 1’ or greater area of grass and crushed stone added.
Peter Hogan next wished to review the manure pit design. Heidi Akerman noted that she did not have the pit backfilled in case the Board wanted to look at the pit’s drainage and had installed piping. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, added that a lower hump had been removed and there was one at the bottom of the ramp with a slotted drain with a berm retained at the top. He further added that there were french drains around the outside of the pit to keep the water from backing into the pit. To clarify he stated that a drain was eliminated at the bottom, they kept one at the top and french drains were added around the outside except for the building side. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that any rain that went over the ramp roof would shed away so there would only be
direct rain water. Peter Hogan felt that by eliminating the front drain the applicant had met the design intent of the manure pit in the first place as they could stack manure higher than its concrete wall and it still would not get into the stream on site. He added that the next feature was self cleaning where if snow was not removed from the ramp it would cause an odor in the barn. Peter Hogan further noted that if it became too wet a roof might be warranted or the applicants could just live with it, regardless, there was no straight shot discharge to the stream. The Chairman asked if the manure pit should be back filled and finished before the Board went to view the site again. Peter Hogan stated that he would like to see the pit back filled and stabilized. Heidi Akerman added that it would be graveled also. Peter Hogan remarked that, essentially, he wanted to see the site completed and some growth established.
The Chairman asked about the business sign on site. Heidi Akerman produced a picture to show the Board. The Chairman stated that the main issue was that the plan had changed several times and that the Board had been out twice for a compliance site walk and now that the applicants and the Board were in agreement regarding what was on the new plan they should complete the work that needed to be done and, once complete, call the Planning Department to schedule another compliance site walk. Peter Hogan commented that he would like to see the white door on the back of the barn gone. Heidi Akerman replied that the Building Inspector had informed her that the door along with stairs 3’ out from the building were required.
The Chairman asked that the applicants contact the Planning Department when the site work was completed. Peter Hogan asked if there would be rip rap place at the bottom of the outfall by the retaining wall. Douglas Hill stated that this was noted in the key on the plan. Peter Hogan asked Heidi Akerman if her plan reflected the latest revisions to the manure pit. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, replied that it did and he had clarified this today with Russ, the current site contractor. Peter Hogan asked the Coordinator how the Board should proceed since the approved plan was different than the revised one. The Coordinator replied that the Board could approve the amended plan or wait until the compliance hearing and do it then to reflect what was revised. Earl
Sandford, LLS, PE, asked if he made notes to the plan reflecting tonight’s discussion if he could submit those notes with compliance. Peter Hogan replied that he could or could submit a completed plan with the finished product. He noted, in fact, that he would prefer to have a revised, up to date plan in hand for the next site walk.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn Clukay, David D. & Akerman, Heidi L.
Compliance Hearing/NRSPR/Horse Boarding and Riding Stable, Location: Saunders Hill and Bunker Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot # 1/12, Residential-Agricultural “R-A”
District, to August 26, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
NIXON, LOUIS G., II & TRUDY M.
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Minor Subdivision/2 Lots
Location: 116 Lyndeborough Road
Tax Map/Lot # 7/58-1
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were the applicant Louis Nixon, Janet Nixon and Earl Sandford, LLS, PE.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that in reference to discussion at the last meeting the applicant still wished to make a plug for proposing a shared driveway entrance for the subdivision. He explained that the proposed new lot would use the same existing curb cut, however, its driveway would split off to get over to its property at slightly over the 100’ mark. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that an additional argument would be to go up the tongue of the backlot, however, this would require an additional curb cut and take away from the rural aspect of the road and trail system off it. He added that there was also an existing culvert in a depressed area that did serve to mitigate drainage and putting a driveway in that area would impact storage, therefore, he felt that
it would be better to allow that depression to remain in its natural state. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, further added that there was an issue with a missing abutter. The Coordinator explained that this had been resolved.
The Chairman noted that at the previous meeting Mr. Nixon had agreed to no further subdivision on the site if this plan were approved and asked where that note appeared on the plan. Louis Nixon replied that because of the way the site was configured it would not be possible to further subdivide as there was only 50’ of frontage on the road. The Chairman recalled that the Board had previously noted that a lot line adjustment to the site could open up the possibility for future subdivision. Louis Nixon replied that he did not see how the site design could allow further subdivision and preserve the rural character of the land. He added that in further discussions with his wife he did not want to limit himself from the option of offering future lots to their
children. Douglas Hill noted that the fact that the applicants did not wish to include a “no further subdivision” note would not bias him against any considerations of approving the plan. The Chairman clarified that there was an issue with lot numbers changing on the plan. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, explained that they had changed the former number choice of 7/58-3 to 7/58-1-1 after speaking with the Assessor’s Office.
Gordon Carlstrom stated that the applicant would need to prove that an individual driveway could be supported on the subdivided lot before the Board could consider approving an easement for a shared driveway. Louis Nixon noted that the subdivision itself did not require an easement. Gordon Carlstrom clarified that it would still need to be proven that the proposed lot could sustain its own driveway per Zoning 309:1. Louis Nixon replied that the lot could accommodate its own individual driveway and that it would in fact be more economical to do this on the 50’ tongue than to construct a common driveway, however, he wished to preserve the rural character of the land. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, asked if the applicant showed the feasibility of an individual driveway
for the proposed lot on the plan if the Board would still be open to an easement for a shared driveway. Peter Hogan replied that he was against any common driveway especially when it was on someone else’s property. Gordon Carlstrom stated that his opinion was that he would be fine with an easement as long as it could be proven that the lot could have sustained its own individual driveway. Don Duhaime stated that he agreed with Peter Hogan and was not 100% willing to grant an easement for a driveway on someone else’s property. Peter Hogan noted that although the applicant was concerned about preserving the rural character of the site, if his children further subdivided in the future they would not be able to construct driveways off the common one proposed and would need to put additional curb cuts off the road anyway. He clarified that he was not against that happening but he felt that this plan needed to show a driveway supported on its own
property. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, asked if the Board would then be considering the two driveway options for the next meeting if he drafted these on the plan and then vote for one. Gordon Carlstrom reiterated that his main concern was being able to show that an individual driveway could be sustained on the proposed lot before considering any other option.
Janet Nixon wished to note that an original easement placed on the site had included a lane so that the public had parking in this area for fishing, etc. Peter Hogan noted that the Board always tried to think of the future and un-thought of points when considering subdivisions, and in this case, what a future owner may do with the corner piece in question. Louis Nixon noted that this area contained a box culvert and mature pine trees.
The Chairman reiterated that Louis Nixon would still be required to prove that the proposed lot could support its own driveway and asked the Board if they felt a site walk was warranted. He noted that he was not familiar with the property. The Board agreed that they were familiar with the site having walked it when the applicant subdivided land for his existing house. The Chairman stated that he would like to view the site since that subdivision had occurred before he was on the Board.
Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, requested waivers for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Studies given that only one new lot was proposed. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the plan was still considered a Minor Subdivision if the applicant no longer agreed to a “no further subdivision” note on the plan. The Coordinator replied that it was. Peter Hogan noted that under the current Subdivision Regulations this was the case. Gordon Carlstrom stated that he saw no need to require Traffic and Fiscal Impact Studies for the plan. Peter Hogan asked how close the site was located to water shown on the plan. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, noted that what Peter Hogan was referring to on the plan was not water. Louis Nixon added that the Piscataquog River was located
400’ to 500’ to the right of the plan layout. Peter Hogan asked why a box culvert was in an area noted on the plan if there was no water present. He added that he would like to see an individual driveway location flagged and would after all like to view the site with the Chairman. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, stated that 75’ from the mouth of the culvert was the centerline of the tongue of the backlot. Peter Hogan stated that he had no issue in granting the waiver request for the Traffic and Fiscal Impact Studies for the plan but would reserve his opinion on a requirement for an Environmental Study until he had viewed the site.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waivers requested for Traffic and Fiscal Impact Studies for Louis G., II and Trudy M. Nixon, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: 116 Lyndeborough Road, Tax Map/Lot # 7/58-1,Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The applicant had also submitted a waiver request for the requirement of topographic mapping of the entire site. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, explained that the area of the proposed driveway had been topo’d along with the suitable 2 acre parcel for the house and the back portion of the site, therefore, they did not see a need to topo the remaining 11 acres.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to grant the waiver request for the requirement of showing topographic mapping for all of the Lot #7/58-1 per Ray Shea’s request in a letter dated June 12, 2008, for Louis G., II and Trudy M. Nixon, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: 116 Lyndeborough Road, Tax Map/Lot # 7/58-1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that a waiver request had been submitted for the watershed outline and drainage computations. Earl Sandford, LLS, PE, explained that the applicant was not sure that this was required given the one lot proposal. The Coordinator noted that it would be unusual to see such computations for a subdivision of the proposed size.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to grant the waiver requested in a letter dated June 12, 2008, from Ray Shea, for the requirement of watershed outline and drainage computations for Louis G., II and Trudy M. Nixon, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: 116 Lyndeborough Road, Tax Map/Lot # 7/58-1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, with the stipulation that the plan was stamped by a certified engineer. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that he and Peter Hogan would view the site and based on the requirements for an Environmental Study, would ascertain if it was an issue and consider that waiver request at the next scheduled hearing. A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, August 2, 2008, at 8:00 a.m.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the application of Louis G., II and Trudy M. Nixon, Minor Subdivision, 2 Lots, Location: 116 Lyndeborough Road, Tax Map/Lot # 7/58- 1, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to August 26, 2008, at 8:00 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 9:50 the Planning Board took a 10 minute break.
This will be an informational session for John Young to discuss change of use of Tax Map/Lot #16/18, 3 Valley View Road, from Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District to Commercial “Com” District.
Present for this discussion were John and Rita Young and Steve Young.
John Young stated that this was a continuation of a previous discussion had with the Board regarding the relocation of the New Boston Hardware Store. He added that in regard of the fact that the property owner was against adding on to the existing hardware store he was now considering the warehouse he owned at the above noted Tax Map. John Young noted on the plan his residence and the warehouse which was in existence when Zoning for the town was first enacted. He explained that the residence had been purchased in two pieces, one in 1969 and the warehouse added in 1978 with the intent of the Apple Barn being a new storage location. John Young stated that when new fire codes were introduced the warehouse was rented to a company named PTI in 1979 and 1980 and then
rented again to Agchem Services from 1981 to 1987. He stated that in 1986 he purchased the lower part of the property, subdivided, and the two pieces became one lot and because everything was non-conforming he was advised to come before the Planning Board for a site plan review before proceeding.
John Young stated that even though there were steep roads leading to the site he could accommodate a one way in and one way out traffic pattern. He added that there was an existing buffer around the property, ample parking, area for septic and an existing well. Douglas Hill asked if the other commercial property on the street was the Telephone Company’s. John Young replied that it was. He went on to say that the site could easily accommodate tractor trailers as was done when it had been a chemical warehouse and that it had been used over time for apple storage also from the orchard he operated. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the site was all one lot. John Young replied that it was and totaled 5.07 acres. Gordon Carlstrom asked if John Young wished
the site to be Commercial or a special exception use. John Young replied that he wished it to be whatever it should be to accomplish his proposal. Gordon Carlstrom noted that if the site was re-zoned commercial there could not be a residence there. Don Duhaime questioned this as it had been used commercially in the past anyway. Gordon Carlstrom clarified that Don Duhaime was thinking along the lines of a continuity of grandfathering in this case. Rita Young noted that the site had been used for retail as well. John Young added that it had also been used for Agricultural Consulting, JCS Construction storage and could document a pattern of this continued usage which he submitted to the Board. Peter Hogan asked if the submission was considered a legal document. John Young replied that the notice submitted was what had been given to the Town at the time Zoning began and the uses were never challenged. He added that it was likely
that this document was not filed any later than March 13, 1991. John Young then presented the files of Legal Non-Conforming Use to the Board. The Coordinator noted that these files were not on file in the Planning Department. She explained that the issue was that if the non-conformity ceases for more than two years the property reverts back to the underlying zoning. In reviewing the submitted documents Peter Hogan stated that he found the most aggressive use listed for the site to be the machine storage and repair which ceased when the apple orchard operations ended in the fall of 2007. John Young noted that apple orchard machinery was still stored in the warehouse and he also rented space to John King Plumbing and Heating. The Coordinator asked John Young if he had obtained a special exception from the ZBA at the time. John Young replied that he had not as there had been no reason to since his use was in existence prior to Zoning.
Peter Hogan stated that he believed that the intent of the form had been to grandfather him due to that fact.
The Coordinator stated that the Board might wish to consider if the applicant’s proposal is a home business and secondly is there enough information to confirm that the site’s use was grandfathered and matches what the proposal is currently based on the submitted form and had not ceased for two or more years. She added that if the site were to be considered Commercial that would mean under current Zoning that it could not be Residential-Agricultural and could support an argument for “spot” Zoning. Don Duhaime noted that the site was used as Commercial/Retail property and why it should not continue as such with the Board requiring an updated Site Plan. Peter Hogan clarified that Don Duhaime was suggesting that the Board allow the site as an expansion
of grandfathered use on a non-conforming lot. The Coordinator suggested to the Board that they may want to take time to review the materials submitted by John Young this evening and discuss it at another meeting and also consider Don Duhaime’s points on the grandfathering aspect. The Chairman agreed. He suggested that they table tonight’s discussion and review the information provided. Douglas Hill stated that it could not be assumed that this location would be a better location for the hardware store. Steve Young agreed that there would be less curb appeal but that it would afford them the space they needed. Douglas Hill asked if the warehouse was visible from the main road (High Street). John Young replied that it was not but noted that he did own 151’ of highway frontage for signage. The Chairman asked if a site walk would be worthwhile. Peter Hogan replied that it could be in a non-specific information
gathering aspect (given that a formal application had not been submitted). Gordon Carlstrom thought that an informal drive-by by members of the Board would suffice. The Board agreed and John Young stated that would be ok with him.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the informational session for John Young, discussion re: change of use of Tax Map/Lot #16/18, 3 Valley View Road, from Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District to Commercial “Com” District, to August 26, 2006, at 8:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
This will be an informational session with Heidi Risman Jones to discuss a proposed use of property at 15 Bedford Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/60, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, for a day care facility.
Heidi Risman Jones was present for this discussion. An abutter present was Peter Clark. An interested party present was realtor Joan Blais.
Heidi Risman Jones stated that she currently operated a licensed day care facility on 44 Lincoln Drive in Town by the name of Homespun Daycare and had been in the business for 14 years. She noted that there was a strong need for increased childcare in Town and felt that 15 Bedford Road would be suitable for a 30 child facility and an additional two family rental. She added that she had letters from two abutters in support of her proposal. Peter Hogan asked if there was an existing site plan for the property. The Coordinator replied there was not and that it would not be considered unusual for a lot that old to have no Driveway Permit or Site Plan on file as was the case here. Heidi Risman Jones stated that she wished to separate her business from her existing
residence and asked if a variance would be required to have the site approved as a daycare/2 family rental since multi-use zoning was not approved for that property. She noted that the daycare portion of the site would encompass the “L” shaped portion of the house. Douglas Hill asked the square footage of the “L”. Heidi Risman Jones replied that it was approximately 1,100 s.f. The Chairman noted to Heidi Risman Jones that she would be increasing her child occupancy at her existing house from 17 to 30 at the proposed site and asked if she was confident that she could fulfill the State’s licensing requirements based on the square footage she was considering. Heidi Risman Jones replied that the requirements fluctuated on square footage based on the age of the child but she was confident that the site would work and was not intending to use the second floor. Peter Hogan asked what type of Zoning was assigned to the
building that currently accommodated Little People’s Depot. The Coordinator replied that it was Residential-Agricultural, however, that building had a special exception when Zoning was different. She added that Cliff Plourde had been in that building previously with his business as well as an animal hospital. Peter Hogan asked Heidi Risman Jones how many employees she would be considering for the proposed business. Heidi Risman Jones replied that the staff would be designated by the number of children, therefore, with 30 children she would assume 4 employees. Peter Hogan asked if any employees would be living at the proposed site. Heidi Risman Jones thought that it might be difficult to stipulate that an employee needed to live on the site.
The Chairman clarified that parking needed for the site would be 3-4 spaces for employees, 2 each for the rental units and a drop off area. He asked Heidi Risman Jones how she currently handled parking at her home business daycare. Heidi Risman Jones replied that she was licensed in a different capacity for that site (“Home/Group Family”) but that she did have parking for 8 cars at her residence. She noted that the proposed property offered a lot of parking with capabilities for driving in and out and around the back of the house, therefore, she saw it as an optimum location. Peter Hogan stated that although he had no issue with the proposal of the use the issue was where to place it in the Zoning Ordinance because of the coexistence of the two uses
(multi-family and private school). Heidi Risman Jones asked for a poll from Board members. Don Duhaime and Douglas Hill stated that they had no issues. Abutter Peter Clark asked the Board what specifically they had no issue with. Douglas Hill replied that the Board had recently set up a Small Scale Commercial Sub-Committee to look at the need for more Commercial property in Town and the growing need for home business or Commercial sites as the Town grew which could result in an interesting blend between abutters and business owners. He added that he thought this was a better usage proposed that some other examples he had heard. Peter Clark clarified that his question had pertained more to the current Zoning of the property. Douglas Hill replied that from a legal standpoint of Zoning he had no idea. Peter Hogan asked Peter Clark what his concerns were. Peter Clark replied that he was not prepared to answer but understood that
current Zoning offered 3 possible uses: Multi-Family Home, Single Family Home or Home Business but not apartment/daycare combined. He asked the Board what their thoughts were on this since a combination use was not currently allowed. Peter Hogan stated that Peter Clark was correct in his knowledge of Zoning. Peter Clark asked in fairness if the Board would be in favor of allowing both uses on the site. Douglas Hill replied that the Board did not make the laws but abided by Zoning and the Regulations of the Town. Peter Hogan added that he believed the use Peter Clark had on his property (Residential-Agricultural) to be the most sacred use of the Town. Gordon Carlstrom stated that multi-use was the biggest obstacle for the site. Peter Hogan clarified that without people living on the site a daycare would be a permitted use. He noted that the ZBA could grant relief but he thought they would be hard pressed to do so. Peter Hogan
further noted that the Board’s checklist for a permitted use scenario would be their planning checklist which would include things like adequate parking, State permits, life safety, etc.
Heidi Risman Jones asked for clarification on parking requirements for the site. Gordon Carlstrom replied that one parking space would be required for each employee and two for each apartment. Peter Hogan added that a drop off plan for the children would also be a requirement. Interested party Joan Blais, the realtor for the property being discussed, asked if an abutter against having the site used as a daycare could prevent its approval from going through. Peter Hogan replied that such an abutter could bring their opinion forward and appeal at some level, either to the ZBA or beyond by litigation. Douglas Hill stated that given the reference, it would behoove an applicant to speak with their abutters ahead of time and get their opinions. Peter Hogan
stated that a daycare facility was a permitted use for this site and it was the discretion of the Board to permit such a use. Peter Clark clarified that this meant permitted use as a daycare only subject to Site Plan review at which time abutter concerns could be weighed. Peter Hogan replied that was correct and explained that with a multi-use proposal an applicant would need to approach the ZBA and prove a hardship which would be hard to do without someone living there, unless an owner/partner moved in an operated it as a home business. Peter Hogan asked Peter Clark if he had other concerns regarding the site. Peter Clark stated that there was increased traffic and speed on Bedford Road and questioned adequate sight distance from the property’s driveway. He added that there were other safety issues such as a pond on site, cows in the neighboring field, including sometimes a bull. Peter Clark noted that he had not considered all his
concerns as of yet but felt that the site was problematic.
Heidi Risman Jones asked the Board if they had any other suggestions for multi-use properties in Town that she could consider other than the one being discussed or what was pre-existing. Peter Hogan suggested to Heidi Risman Jones that she contact Ivan Byam who was putting up a Commercial building on his property and might be interested in renting space. Heidi Risman Jones asked about the antique shop on River Road. Gordon Carlstrom replied that it had been an owner occupied scenario. Peter Hogan noted that even if it had not been she would have a very challenging traffic flow at that location for a daycare. Peter Clark suggested the former property used by Masiello in front of the School. Peter Hogan stated that that property had good traffic flow
accommodations. Heidi Risman Jones stated that she was unsure if those owners would be willing to sell or rent that property.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 22, 2008
1. Approval of minutes of June 24, 2008, with or without changes, distributed by email.
Peter Hogan stated that sometimes when reading the minutes he felt that points made earlier in a discussion were re-noted. In the interest of time the Board determined that they would return to this point and discussion at another time.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of June 24, 2008, as written.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Driveway Permit for Karen & James Roach, 15 Beard Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/12-12, for the Board’s action. (drive by prior to meeting-plan in read file)
Karen and James Roach were present for this item.
Peter Hogan stated that he felt upon viewing the driveway that it had been built as designed and certified to plan. Douglas Hill added that he had also viewed the driveway earlier today
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept the as-built plans and approve the driveway for James and Karen Roach, Tax Map/Lot #6/12-12, Beard Road.
The Chairman asked if a negative grade to prevent runoff into the road had been stipulated as he maintained that it was not there and especially evident on the left hand side of the driveway. Douglas Hill noted that the driveway pitched to the left into the road. The Chairman stated that if the rest of the Board had viewed the driveway and was ok with it he would concede, however, he felt that there was not a negative depression.
Douglas Hill stated that he did not foresee any runoff coming onto Beard road from the driveway. Karen Roach noted that the Road Agent had also viewed the driveway and had no issues. Peter Hogan asked who had stamped the plan. James Roach replied that it had been stamped by Mike Dahlberg, LLS. Peter Hogan stated that although he could not guarantee the -3% grade it looked to him like there would be no wash out into the road from the driveway, therefore, he did not think there were any issues. The Chairman asked if the driveway embankment would need to be stabilized before the bond was released. Douglas Hill noted that he too had no issues with the driveway. Peter Hogan agreed.
Don Duhaime seconded the motion.
The Coordinator asked if the motion included the release of the bond. She noted that the total bond was $14,622 and the Board could consider keeping $2K for loam and seeding at their discretion.
Peter Hogan included in his previous motion the additional requirement that $2K will be held in bond for loaming and seeding with the remainder of the bond being returned. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Discussion re: Mark Bilodeau, cordwood business, Joe English Road.
(Drive by for progress check prior to meeting)
Douglas Hill stated that he saw no changes to the site. Don Duhaime agreed and felt that Mr. Bilodeau was not trying to make his situation any better. The Board determined that they would return to this subject later in the evening in the interest of time.
8a. A copy of a memorandum dated July 17, 2008, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator and Board of Selectmen, Stu Lewin, Chairman and Planning Board Members, re: Housing and Conservation Planning Program, was distributed for the Board’s information.
8b. A copy of a letter received July 7, 2008, from Amy Ignatius, Director, State of New Hampshire, Office of Energy and Planning, was distributed for the Board’s information.
8c. Housing and Conservation Planning Program Spring 2008 Application Scoring Results were distributed for the Board’s information.
9. Meeting Minutes of July 7, 2008, Small Scale Planned Commercial District, were distributed for the Board’s information.
11. Discussion, re: August meetings.
It was determined earlier in the evening that there would be one meeting in August (August 26, 2008).
14. A copy of pre-construction meeting minutes of July 14, 2008, re: Albert LaChance, Lull Road upgrades was distributed for the Board’s information.
15. A copy of the Outstanding Items Summary dated July 21, 2008, for Hopkins and Salisbury Road (Kettle Lane), was distributed for the Board’s information.
16. Copies of construction services reports for Twin Bridge Lane Management, LLC (Page Lane), Vista Road, LLC (Hutchinson Lane), SHB Properties, LLC (Pulpit Road), Christian Farm Estates (Christian Farm Drive) and Indian Falls, LLC (Indian Falls Road) were distributed for the Board’s information.
4. Discussion, re: NH Landscape Supply site plan, Hemlock Drive, Tax Map/Lot #3/52-26.
(Will Lambert to be present)
William and Jason Lambert were present for this item.
They submitted an amended site plan showing the paved area and propane tanks which were not on the original approved plan. The Coordinator explained that the site had changed from what was on the approved plan and William and Jason Lambert were looking for guidance from the Board on what was now required or if a compliance hearing could accommodate them.
Peter Hogan stated that it appeared that the entire use had changed from what the applicants were approved for. William Lambert stated that last year they obtained a building permit and because they had upgraded the site more than what the approved plan reflected they were told that they would need to re-appear before the Planning Board. The Board suggested that the applicants keep the landscape portion of the business on the plan. Gordon Carlstrom asked what had changed from the originally approved plan. William Lambert replied that they had paved the lot and placed propane tanks behind the septic system. The Coordinator noted that the original site plan had proposed a gravel surface and now with the paving added the Board might wish to consider drainage, fire lanes and emergency equipment turnarounds.
She added that the Board had the option of site walking the property for compliance and determining if it fit in with the Site Review Regulations. Douglas Hill noted that if the applicants had come to the Board sooner in the process an As-Built might have taken care of the issue. Gordon Carlstrom stated that a compliance walk through seemed warranted. William Lambert noted that Mike Dahlberg, LLS, had just revised the plan the previous Thursday to reflect the changes that had been made to the site. Gordon Carlstrom asked for clarification on the two different businesses now at the site. William Lambert replied that his business was excavation and landscaping. Jason Lambert replied that his business was wire and cable harnesses. Gordon Carlstrom asked if the building was proposed as multi-tenant previously. Peter Hogan replied that he understood it to be. Gordon Carlstrom thought that a compliance site walk should be held. Douglas Hill stated that the applicants should be
certain that everything on the site was on the plan and compare it to the Planning Department checklist. He asked the applicants if they had exterior lighting on the building as he did not see it on the plan. William Lambert replied that there was exterior lighting and checked the plan. He added that they would review the plan with Mike Dahlberg, LLS, before the compliance site walk.
A compliance site walk was scheduled for Saturday, August 2, 2008, at 8:30 a.m.
10. A copy of a letter received July 18, 2008, from Brian McKenna, Project Manager, Thibeault Properties, to New Boston Planning Board, re: Driveway Permit, Tax Map/Lot #40-5-1, 37 Inkberry Road, was distributed for the Board’s review and discussion.
Brian McKenna, Project Manager, Thibeault Properties and lot buyer Joseph Cabral was present for this discussion.
Brian McKenna stated that this was a lot whose driveway entered off Inkberry Road and extended to the backside of the Hutchinson Lane subdivision. He noted that the driveway had not been constructed to plan which Thibeault Corporation acknowledged. Brian McKenna stated that the plan showed the need for a drainage manhole on top of a berm that would drain down the middle and to the left, however, the means to accomplish this was not practical, therefore, they proposed installing a driveway cross culvert to a level spreader and thence into the originally approved drainage channels.
The Chairman stated that he had viewed this driveway and asked if there was anything that could be done about the existing ditchline to prevent erosion issues. Brian McKenna replied that this would be done. The Chairman stated that he had an issue with this drainage going on to another property. Brian McKenna stated that the approved plan put a level spreader in the same location and that he was asking for an amendment to the plan in order to better get the drainage from one side to another.
Gordon Carlstrom asked the maximum grade of the driveway. Brian McKenna replied that it was 10%. Douglas Hill noted that an As-Built Plan would be required. Brian McKenna replied that one would be provided. He added that rather than a rip rap swale he proposed a grass swale with rip rap check dams. Lot owner Joseph Cabral stated that as of Friday, August 1, 2008, he would not have a place to live and hoped that he could be granted a temporary Certificate of Occupancy. He added that he had been to Thibeault Corporation’s office 3 or 4 times in the past 5 weeks and Brian McKenna was the first person who took the reigns to assist him. Brian McKenna asked if he could proceed with his proposed change in structure if it met the original intent.
Douglas Hill asked if the plans would be stamped by a certified engineer. Brian McKenna replied that they would be. Peter Hogan stated that he could proceed at his own risk and if he was confident that the proposals would meet the Board’s requirements and better the design then he could do so. The Coordinator asked Brian McKenna if the construction would be done by August 2, 2008. Brian McKenna replied that it would be and asked if the bank was matted, seeded and mulched if this would qualify as stabilization. Gordon Carlstrom noted that the Board could hold a bond until growth was established. Brian McKenna asked if the Board issued temporary Certificates of Occupancy (CO). Douglas Hill replied that if a site walk was scheduled for August 2, 2008, it could become a compliance site walk and a CO could be applied for the following Tuesday after. Peter Hogan felt that the compliance should be addressed at a hearing, not a
site walk. Gordon Carlstrom wondered how compliance could be addressed without holding a hearing.
The Board determined that they would notice the site walk as a compliance hearing and scheduled it for August 2, 2008, at 9:00 a.m.
6. A copy of a letter dated July 10, 2008, from Michele Brown, Planning Board Assistant to Rick Martin, Right Way Builders, Inc., re: Tax Map/Lot #5/50 & 5/52, Beard Road, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Present for this item was Carol Barton, Esq., for the Garretsons.
The Coordinator explained that they had not heard back from Rick Martin re: what he wished to do regarding the conditions of his plan as they had almost reached the deadline. Carol Barton, Esq., noted that she was present to represent the Garretsons and to gain assurance that the timber harvesting that took place on the site would not affect his approvals. She added that she had written to the Selectmen regarding this matter also. Gordon Carlstrom recalled that there were some potential issues with the harvesting where bike trails on the 4H Fairgrounds would need revamping. The Coordinator clarified to Carol Barton, Esq., that Rick Martin’s approvals would remain in place until they lapsed at which time plan revocation would be considered. The Board
concurred.
7. A copy of a letter received July 16, 2008, from Dwight D. Sowerby, Drescher & Dokmo, P.A. to Mr. Joseph Foistner, Seff Enterprises & Holdings, LLC, re: Subdivision of Tax Map/Lot #8/84, Road Performance/Maintenance Bond was distributed for the Board’s information.
Gordon Carlstrom explained that this was typical behavior by Mr. Foistner who in this case was trying to dodge putting up a road bond.
3. Discussion re: Mark Bilodeau, cordwood business, Joe English Road.
(Drive by for progress check prior to meeting)
Douglas Hill stated that a letter should be sent to Mr. Bilodeau telling him that he was not allowed to receive any more logs on his site until what was there was sold. Gordon Carlstrom noted that if the Town revoked his license it could present a significant economic disadvantage to the stockpile, therefore, some operating parameters might work well. Don Duhaime noted that Mr. Bilodeau stood before the Board and said that he would work at the pile and there had been no significant change.
The Board determined that they would send Mr. Bilodeau a letter stating that he had not done what he said he would do with the stockpile in the time frame he had offered, send him copies of the hearing minutes regarding his plan, and ask him to come before the Board for discussion regarding amending his Site Plan. Peter Hogan thought that it did not make sense to make a demand on Mr. Bilodeau that the Board could not enforce. He added that he felt Mr.Bilodeau was further stockpiling logs to aggravate his neighbor who had complained that she could not sell her house because of the view of his site. The Coordinator disagreed and felt that Mr. Bilodeau and the Board had not been on the same page when they were discussing the parameters of his plan at the hearings
held.
12. Driveway Permit Applications for Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, Page Lane, Tax Map/Lot #2/62, 2/62-17 thru 28, for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator stated that the Road Agent had viewed the road and said all looked well as it was flat and short. Gordon Carlstrom asked if gravel would be run next to the road to protect it during the site construction as he had only seen sand unless they were topcoating. The Coordinator replied that for lot construction this was not a requirement unless there was a Stormwater Management Plan for a lot, but for a road gravel was required.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Applications for Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, Page Lane, Tax Map/Lot #2/62, 2/62-17 thru 28, 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. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
13. A copy of a letter dated July 22, 2008, from Ray Shea of Sandford Survey and Engineering, Inc., to the Board, re: extension request for Shakey Pond Development, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #15/15, was distributed for the Board’s action.
The Coordinator explained that the applicants did not want their preliminary conditional approval to lapse given that they were waiting for State Permits to come through.
Gordon Carlstrom MOVED to extend the conditions precedent for Shakey Pond Development, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #15/15, for 180 days as requested. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
David Teed was present in the audience and stated that he was applying for a position of Planning Board Alternate. He noted that he had recently moved here from Jacksonville, Florida, and had seen the effects of uncontrolled growth, therefore, took an interest in being on the Board to assure that growth in the Town occurred properly.
Peter Hogan MOVED to recommend that the application of David Teed for Planning Board alternate be forwarded to the Selectmen. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Coordinator stated that a letter had been received by fax late in the day from Bob Huettner, Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, requesting that the Board move to preemptively release a portion of the bond for Page Lane pending Kevin Leonard, PE’s, recommendation. The Board determined that they would follow standard practice to receive Kevin Leonard., PE’s recommendation prior to acting on any bond reduction.
At 11:20 p.m. Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne O’Brien
Recording Clerk
| |
