Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 12/08/2009
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
NEW BOSTON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of December 8, 2009



The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin.  Present were regular members Douglas Hill and Peter Hogan, alternate Mark Suennen and Ex-officio Christine Quirk.  Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong and Recording Clerk Valerie Diaz.

Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Lynette Lombard, Jon Willard, John and Heidi Palmer, Dennis McKenney, LLS, Brian Towne, and Don Chapman.

Public Input Session, re:  Workforce and Multi-Family Housing Committee

Present in the audience was Workforce Housing Committee Chairman Jon Willard.  Also present was Lynette Lombard.
The Chairman noted that the first half of the public input session would cover proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments with regard to workforce and multi-family housing.  He continued that the second half of the public input session would cover the remaining miscellaneous proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments.
The Chairman inquired if audience member, Lynette Lombard of 11 Pine Echo Road, was a member of the Workforce Housing Committee.  Lynette Lombard indicated that she was present merely as an interested resident.
The Chairman explained that due to recent changes in state law pertaining to workforce and multi-family housing the Board established a subcommittee to address issues and formulate a plan to meet the Town’s statutory requirements.  He continued that following the Committee’s research a general assessment was made that it is difficult, if not impossible, to implement workforce housing in New Boston.  He noted that the most significant barrier was the cost of land in New Boston.  He stated that the Committee had provided the Board with a long list of recommendations.  He further stated that the Board had asked the Committee to shorten and organize the recommendations by priority.  He noted that the first recommendation of the Committee was to implement a Workforce and Multi-Family Overlay District.  He noted that the Board supported further discussion and public input on several of the recommendations.
The Chairman asked if Lynette Lombard had any questions or comments.  Lynette Lombard advised that she had yet to read the recommendations and as such did not have any comments.  She added that she hoped to hear from the Committee on their recommendations.  The Chairman invited Lynette Lombard to a more formal public session scheduled for December 22, 2009, at which time the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee would be present.    
The Chairman stated that he would be addressing recommendations from the Committee that needed further discussion from the Board.  He asked the Coordinator if the Board needed to make final decisions on what recommendations to move forward to the public session.  The Coordinator answered yes.  The Chairman than asked if at the public session the Board could vote not to move a recommendation forward.  The Coordinator answered yes.  
The Chairman asked the Coordinator for the justification for the Committee’s recommendation that proposed removing the Special Exception Requirement for Accessory Dwelling Units.  The Coordinator noted that the Committee had pointed out that a duplex in an R-A or R-1 District did not need a Special Exception and, therefore, questioned the requirement for a small Accessory Dwelling Unit to have a Special Exception.  The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the reason the regulations reflected the current Special Exception for Accessory Dwelling Units because that is what other towns had done when the Ordinance was put together.  The Coordinator responded yes.  
Douglas Hill asked the Coordinator, should the Special Exception be removed from Accessory Dwelling Units, would this enable applicants to simply apply for a building permit from the Building Inspector.  The Coordinator replied yes.
The Chairman asked the Board for further questions or comments before deciding whether or not to move this recommendation forward.  
Douglas Hill asked if a set of requirements for a lot would need to be met for an Accessory Dwelling Unit.  The Coordinator answered yes.  Douglas Hill asked if Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, would be overseeing this process and ensuring the basic requirements were met.  The Coordinator replied yes.  Peter Hogan asked what the basic requirements for an Accessory Dwelling Units were.  The Coordinator noted that the requirements could be found Section 404 of the Zoning Ordinance.  Mark Suennen interjected that an Accessory Dwelling Unit required between 300 sq ft and 1,000 sq ft, must meet septic requirements, and reflect the character of the pre-existing structure.  Douglas Hill read the requirements and limitations in Section 404.3 as follows: “1.  Accessory dwelling units are permitted in the residential-Agricultural “R-A District”, except in Open Space developments.  2.  Accessory dwelling units are intended to be secondary and accessory to a principal single-family dwelling unit.  3.  Either the principal dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied by the owner of the lot on which the dwellings are located.  4.  Accessory dwelling units shall not be permitted on any lot with an existing two-family dwelling.  Nor shall a two-family dwelling be permitted on any lot with an existing accessory dwelling unit.  5.  In granting a special exception, the Board of Adjustment must find that the secondary dwelling unit is developed in a manner which does not alter the character or appearance of the principal dwelling unit as a single-family residence.”  Douglas Hill sought clarification that a Special Exception currently needed to be requested from the ZBA.  The Coordinator confirmed Douglas Hill’s statement.  Douglas Hill continued citing Section 404.3, "6.  Only one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed for principal dwelling.  The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall have an independent address, designation of the principal dwelling unit and/or lot.  7.  The accessory dwelling unit shall have an independent address designation from the principal dwelling.  8.  Detached accessory dwelling units cannot be converted to a principal dwelling unit.  9.  Any accessory dwelling unit shall have living space of no less than 300 square feet and no greater than 1,000 square feet.  10.  A septic system shall be provided in accordance with State regulations.  11.  Adequate off-street parking shall be provided.  12.  Adequate provisions must exist or be made for ingress, egress and turning of vehicles within the site.  13.  A secondary driveway shall not be permitted unless it meets the requirements of the Town of New Boston Driveway Regulations.  14.  All criteria of the Zoning District including, but not limited to, lot sizes, frontages, yard requirements and height requirrements, wetland setbacks, and so on, shall be met.”  The Chairman indicated that the only proposed change would be removing the Special Exception and
noted all other requirements would still be in effect.  Douglas Hill stated in an effort to allow the Planning Board to continue to have jurisdiction over this issue the Board could opt to apply a Conditional Use Permit.  He then asked if there were any downsides to removing the Special Exception.  Peter Hogan asked if Accessory Dwelling Units were permitted in Open Space Subdivisions.  Douglas Hill answered that Accessory Dwelling Units were prohibited in Open Space Subdivisions.  The Coordinator pointed out that an additional recommendation to further discuss was addressing the issue of Open Space Accessory Dwelling Units.  Peter Hogan commented that he could foresee negative effects of removing the Special Exception from Accessory Dwelling Units.  Douglas Hill added that parking could become an issue.  Jon Willard point out that currently the Town would allow two 3,000 sq. ft. units in a duplex on an Open Space lot but not an Accessory Dwelling Unit.  Douglas Hill stated that if the Accessory Dwelling Unit were part of new construction he would not have a problem.  He continued that he believed an issue could arise with the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit in an older neighborhood because of the possibility the structure may not fit in with the surrounding architecture.  He added that his concerns were based on the positions an abutter may have.  Jon Willard noted that existing dwellings are allowed to construct additional attached units by simply obtaining a building permit.  
The Chairman asked for additional comments from the Board.  Mark Suennen stated that he supported the Committee’s recommendation to remove the Special Exception from Accessory Dwelling Units.  
Douglas Hill asked the Committee members if they were aware of any downside with removing the Special Exception from Accessory Dwelling Units.  He continued that he was concerned that with the Committee’s recommendation an abutter would not have any feedback.  He added that requiring an applicant to appear before the Planning Board would give an abutter the opportunity to have input.  Jon Willard explained that it was the Committee’s intent to remedy the application of two different standards for essentially something that would look like the same thing from the outside.  He commented that as long as the applicant was building within the Building Code and the Land Use Regulations an abutter should not have a say about their neighbor’s construction.  Douglas Hill commented that most of the time he would agree with Jon Willard’s statement.  Jon Willard added that the recommendation did not change the use of the property.  He further stated that the need for an Accessory Dwelling Unit in most cases was to accommodate family members who would be living at the same residence as their family.  Christine Quirk noted that a large family would most likely not be relocating to a 1,000 sq. ft. dwelling.  Douglas Hill commented that a large family could move to a 1,000 sq. ft. home, noting that many apartments in Manchester did not exceed 900 sq. ft.  Jon Willard stated that it was less likely to happen than if a duplex were constructed.  Douglas Hill stated that he was concerned with potential parking issues.  Jon Willard clarified that the Town’s off-street parking requirements would still need to be met.  Mark Suennen added that any issue that arose between abutters would become a civil matter between the two parties and not involve the Town.  The Chairman asked if applying for a Conditional Use Permit created less of a barrier than a Special Exception.  The Coordinator explained that a Special Exception was a use by right with limitations attached to it and a Conditional Use Permit was very similar.  She added that by using a Conditional Use Permit the Planning Board would be the responsible board as opposed to the ZBA for a Special Exception.  Jon Willard stated that the Committee was not proposing a Conditional Use Permit in lieu of the Special Exception.  The Chairman and Douglas Hill acknowledged that the Committee was not proposing a Conditional Use Permit but explained that the Board was discussing an alternate option to removing the Special Exception.  Douglas Hill stated that he did not believe that a Special Exception should be used because of the difficulties with the process; however, he believed having a Conditional Use Permit would require an applicant to appear before the Planning Board giving an abutter the opportunity to make sure their property values were not going to be affected.  Jon Willard pointed out that should a Conditional Use Permit be required the issue that one standard is applied to Accessory Dwelling Units and not to duplexes would still remain.  Douglas Hill believed that more Accessory Dwelling Units would be constructed than duplexes.  Jon Willard agreed with Douglas Hill’s statement and continued that Accessory Dwelling Units were an affordable means for providing housing.  
The Chairman asked if Conditional Use Permits needed to be noticed.  Douglas Hill replied that they did.
Peter Hogan stated that he could only imagine what could move into an Accessory Dwelling Unit.  He continued that because construction costs would be lower than a duplex he believed that rent would lower.  He suggested that potential issues of bicycles, tricycles, wagons, sheds, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, and cars without tires around the property could arise.  He believed that some discretion should be applied to ensure that the standard of living for “eye-scape” would not be affected.   The Chairman asked if Peter Hogan’s proposed discretion would be accomplished through a Special Exception or a Conditional Use Permit.  Peter Hogan replied that he would be in favor of a Special Exception or a Conditional Use Permit because he believed that lots exist that should not have Accessory Dwelling Units.  The Chairman asked how Peter Hogan would propose enforcing his aforementioned statement.  Peter Hogan answered that he was unsure.  
Mark Suennen noted that both a Special Exception and Conditional Use Permit were public processes.  He continued that the Committee was trying to remove the administrative hassle to the applicant of having to go through a public process to do something that they would not be required to go through if two buildings were connected by the same roof line.  The Chairman stated that perhaps the duplex requirements should be amended.  Douglas Hill stated that amending the duplex requirements may not be the best option.  He explained that from a builder’s point of view a difference existed between an Accessory Dwelling Unit and the construction of a duplex.  Jon Willard questioned the difference that Douglas Hill referenced pertaining to an existing structure.  Douglas Hill explained that an Accessory Dwelling Unit could be placed over a garage.  Jon Willard stated that a duplex could also be over a garage.  He continued that there not any standards for a duplex, noting that Accessory Dwelling Units had stricter requirements.  Douglas Hill pointed out that Accessory Dwelling Units and duplexes were defined differently.  Mark Suennen stated that the Zoning Ordinance defined a duplex as two living units under the same roof line.  He continued that the roof line could be a breezeway and the breezeway could attach a garage with an apartment to an existing house.  He added that an Accessory Dwelling Unit was defined as a detached structure, something that was not physically attached to the primary residence.  Douglas Hill stated that the structure could be attached.  The Coordinator indicated that if the structure was attached to the primary structure it would then become a two-family/duplex.  Mark Suennen noted that the only difference between a duplex and an Accessory Dwelling Unit was the roof line.  He continued that under the current requirements an applicant seeking to break a continuous roof line would need to go through an additional administrative process.  He commented that this requirement seemed unnecessary.  The Coordinator pointed out that the Accessory Dwelling Unit was already more restrictive than a duplex citing the requirement that the owner of either the principal unit or the Accessory Dwelling Unit needed to live onsite.  
Douglas Hill reiterated that he wanted the Board to discuss whether or not they believed an abutter should have feedback.  He continued that he did not have a strong opinion one way or the other but thought it was worth discussing.  The Chairman asked Jon Willard if the Committee’s primary argument was that abutters should not be permitted to have input or that an Accessory Dwelling Unit’s requirement are different from a duplex and they should be the same.  He added that if his answer was the latter perhaps the requirements for a duplex should be amended to reflect a Special Exception process.  Jon Willard answered that applying two different standards to essentially something that looked the same was not good practice.  
The Chairman asked Lynette Lombard for any comments or questions; she did not have any questions or comments.  
The Chairman advised the Board that a decision needed to be made on whether or not to move the Committee’s recommendation forward to the public hearing.  Douglas Hill suggested moving the recommendation forward as is for further public input.  The Chairman asked Douglas Hill if he was in favor of moving the recommendation forward without any further overseer than Ed Hunter, Building Inspector.  Douglas Hill indicated at this point he would be in favor of moving forward for further input from the public; it was Peter Hogan’s opinion that an overseer should be required.  He added that perhaps the standard could be lessened so that the ZBA did not have to be the overseer.  He continued that some oversight should be required for the purposes of making decisions on whether a lot was capable of sustaining an Accessory Dwelling Unit.  Jon Willard asked what type of oversight would be applied.  Douglas Hill answered Conditional Use Permit.  Jon Willard asked for specific standards that would be applied to Accessory Dwelling Units in addition to the Building Code Regulations and Land Use Regulations that were currently required and overseer by the Building Department.  Douglas Hill answered that parking, lighting, and aesthetics would be reviewed.  Jon Willard asked if a site plan review would be required.  Douglas Hill stated that he was unsure.  Jon Willard wanted the Board to keep in mind that the Committee’s intention was to create less administrative costs to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit.  He stated that a review process through the Building Department was conducted for any lot changes.  Christine Quirk agreed with Jon Willard’s statement.  Peter Hogan asked if the Building Inspector went to properties to check for compliance with changes in property.  Christine Quirk answered yes.  Peter Hogan stated that the process was more of an inspection than a review.  Jon Willard disagreed with Peter Hogan and stated that the process was a review.  The Coordinator noted that site plan review would not be conducted on a two-family dwelling.
Douglas Hill stated again that he merely wished for abutters to have the ability to voice their opinions.  Jon Willard noted that large additions to homes were not subject to Planning Board review.  Douglas Hill disagreed with Jon Willard.  Peter Hogan noted that any reviews would encompass the building, the driveway, the lot layout, and reasonable land use.  He stated that he believed additional review was necessary.  
The Chairman asked Mark Suennen if he was in favor of removing the Special Exception from Accessory Dwelling Units.  Mark Suennen answered yes, he was in favor of the Committee’s recommendations.  The Chairman asked Peter Hogan for confirmation that he believed there should be some aspect of public review either by the ZBA or the Planning Board.  Peter Hogan confirmed that he was in favor of a public review and suggested that the Planning Board conduct such a review.  Christine Quirk stated that she was in favor of removing the Special Exception.  Douglas Hill was in favor of a Conditional Use Permit.  The Coordinator advised that it was too late to write a Conditional Use process this year.  She explained that if the Board would like to move forward with the Conditional Use they would have to wait until next year which would mean the Special Exception would remain as is.  Douglas Hill commented that he would go with the Committee’s recommendation.  The Chairman stated that the Board’s consensus was to follow the Committee’s recommendation.
The Chairman indicated that the second recommendation of the Committee was to review the requirement for corner lots to have two frontages and associated setbacks.  He explained that the requirement posed an issue as it required the frontage and the setbacks on both parts of the lot that abut the road.  He continued that the Committee was recommending that only one frontage and setback be required.  
It was the Chairman’s opinion not to change the current requirement citing safety concerns.  Douglas Hill and Mark Suennen stated that they agreed with the Committee’s recommendation.  Mark Suennen added that the location of the driveway would define the frontage with normal setbacks.  
Peter Hogan disagreed with the Committee’s recommendation.  He noted that he would entertain changing the requirement to show the 200 ft square on both sides.  He further noted that some lots because of their shape made it impossible to obtain both 200 ft squares; however, the lot still appeared buildable.  He stated that setbacks were important on roads and should remain at 50 ft.  Douglas Hill agreed with Peter Hogan.  The Coordinator advised that it was too late to address the 200 ft square issue for this year.  
Christine Quirk stated that she did not know enough about this recommendation to take a position.  Jon Willard explained that the justification for this recommendation was intended to protect property owners from losing the ability to build on their lots because an abutter decided to build a road adjacent to their property, creating a 50 ft setback instead of the original 20 ft. setback.  Christine Quirk commented that she could foresee that as a problem.  Douglas Hill stated he believed such scenario was rare.  Mark Suennen noted that a current subdivision on Wilson Hill Road under review by the Board was facing this issue.
Peter Hogan stated that a negative effect of the recommendation was that it created a situation in which a property owner could be upset that a road was only 20 ft away from their home.  
The Chairman invited comments or questions from the audience.  John Palmer inquired why the shape of the 200 ft square could not be circle instead.  The Chairman indicated that the 200 ft squares were not the topic being discussed and noted that he would be willing to discuss that issue at a later time.
The Board decided to move forward with the Committee’s recommendation with regard to frontage requirements on corner lots.
The Chairman indicated that the Board had previously decided not to move forward with the Committee’s recommendation for the review of off-street parking requirements.
The Chairman noted that the Committee’s next recommendation for the consideration was for allowing Accessory Dwelling Units in Open Space Subdivisions.  He added that the Committee had represented that a duplex was allowed in an Open Space Subdivision and believed that Accessory Dwelling Units should be also be permitted.
The Chairman asked Jon Willard if he would explain the Committee’s position.  Jon Willard noted that the same argument could be made for applying different standards to essentially the same land use.  The Chairman noted that the lot size would be smaller.  Douglas Hill did not think an Accessory Dwelling Unit would fit in an Open Space Subdivision because of setbacks.  Jon Willard stated that detached garages were permitted in Open Space Subdivisions.  Douglas Hill agreed that an Accessory Dwelling Unit could be possible in an Open Space Subdivision if it were over a garage or was a separate building.  
Mark Suennen stated that he agreed with the Committee’s recommendation.  The Chairman asked Peter Hogan for his opinion.  Peter Hogan did not wish to proceed with the Committee’s recommendations.  Douglas Hill stated he would not mind moving forward with the Committee’s recommendation if there was review process put in place.  Jon Willard added that there would be a review.  Christine Quirk and Douglas Hill decided to move forward with the Committee’s recommendation.  The Chairman recapped that the Board was in favor of moving forward with the Committee’s recommendation.
The Chairman stated that the Committee recommended that the Board review the language of the Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations with regard to their applicability to certain type of residential development, i.e., Open Space Subdivisions and Multi-Family Development.  The Coordinator indicated that this recommendation pertained to Site Plan Regulations and could be addressed at a later time.  The Chairman agreed with the Coordinator to address this recommendation at a later time.
The Chairman invited questions or comments with regard to the proposed Workforce and Multi-Family Overlay District.  
Douglas Hill asked Jon Willard to explain the proposed Overlay District.  Jon Willard explained that the Overlay District would be applied to any residential lot in Town.  He noted that the proposed Workforce and Multi-Family Overlay District was similar to the R-1 Overlay District with some minor changes.  He added that the Overlay District would only apply to workforce housing.  
Douglas Hill asked if 50% of the project would have to fit the definition of workforce housing in order for the Overlay District apply.  Mark Suennen answered that at least 50% of the residential units created as part of the development under the workforce must meet the workforce criteria.  The Chairman noted that an applicant would have to make notice that they intended to utilize the Workforce and Multi-Family Overlay at the onset of a project.  Douglas Hill asked if an applicant had 4 acres could they construct 2 units.  Jon Willard noted that with 1.5 acres a two-family dwelling could be constructed.  Mark Suennen added that 3 or more units could be constructed on 2.5 acres, plus 0.5 acres for every additional unit to a maximum of 12.  Douglas Hill asked if the units could be detached.  Jon Willard answered that a two-family would need to be attached.   He continued that single family dwellings and required 1.5 acres per lot.  Douglas Hill asked what the requirements were for a 6 unit building.  Jon Willard answered that the Multi-Family Overlay District would be applied requiring 2.5 for the first 3 units and 0.5  acre for each additional unit.  The Chairman indicated that 4 acres would be required for a 6 unit structure.  Jon Willard stated that all other Building Code and Land Use Regulations would still apply.
Douglas Hill asked what the Committee meant by “good road access”.  Mark Suennen answered that good road access was left to the Planning Board’s discretion.  The Coordinator clarified that the R-1 requirements would apply.  Mark Suennen also noted that all State Regulations would apply.  The Coordinator added that a feasibility study would need to be submitted.  She explained that a vendor approved by the NH Housing Finance Authority would submit such a study to show that the proposed project would work, i.e., the land was suitable and financing was approved.  
Douglas Hill asked if there were a maximum number of units.  Mark Suennen answered that the maximum number of units was 12 units.  The Coordinator clarified that 12 units was the maximum amount of units in one building per lot.  She explained that one lot of 100 acres would need to be subdivided into separate lots in order to construct additional structures.
Mark Suennen stated that the living space of workforce housing units would not be increased by more than 20% in a ten year period.  He continued that all workforce housing units for sale would have to be sold with deed restrictions to remain in effect for at least 15 years and the deed restrictions would limit the resale value to not more than the purchase price, plus the accumulative change in the HUD Index.  Douglas Hill asked where the Committee gathered the aforementioned information.  Jon Willard answered NH Housing Finance Committee.  Douglas Hill commented that he believed the Committee had originally planned to allow the market dictate the price of the structures.  Mark Suennen pointed out that recent case law evidenced a workforce housing structure being flipped with the property being sold very quickly and negating the value.  
Mark Suennen agreed to move forward with the Committee’s recommendation.  The Chairman asked for Peter Hogan’s opinion.  Peter Hogan commented that no other towns meet the requirement for workforce housing.  Christine Quirk pointed out that all towns had until January 1, 2010, to meet the requirement.  Christine Quirk agreed to move forward with the Committee’s recommendation.  Douglas Hill also agreed to move ahead with the Overlay District.  Peter Hogan did not wish to move forward with the Committee’s recommendation for a Workforce and Multi-Family Housing Overlay District.  The Chairman indicated that the recommendation would move forward.  
Jon Willard asked if the move the Board could possibly move the Workforce and Multi-Family Housing public hearing scheduled for December 22, 2009, to 7:30 p.m.  The Board agreed to the change.
The Chairman indicated that he would suspend the discussion of proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments until after the scheduled hearing for Townes Family Trust.

TOWNES FAMILY TRUST
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/2 Lots
Location:  South Hill Road
Tax/Map/Lot # 13/55
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman seated Mark Suennen as a full voting member.  Present in the audience were Dennis McKenney, LLS, Brian Towne, Agent for the owners, Don Chapman and Heidi and John Palmer.    
The Chairman read the public hearing notice and noted that the outstanding fees had been paid.  He noted that a couple of waivers still needed to be submitted.  He stated that an informational session was held on the application on September 22, 2009.  He continued that the plans dated October 29, 2009, were reviewed against the final plat checklist on December 3, 2009.  He added that various outstanding issues regarding the checklist remained.  He noted that the waiver request for the ISWMP remained incomplete.  He added that there was a question regarding the plans and if they were adequate for the Conditional Use Permit.  He indicated that the Board needed to conduct a site walk.
The Chairman invited the applicant to present to the Board.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that the plans he was presenting had been revised to comply with the items that were identified in the review.  
Dennis McKenney, LLS, introduced himself and noted that he had previously appeared before the Board in September to explain that the applicant intended on subdividing a 79 acre lot to create 2 separate lots.  He explained that the back lot would be 50.3 acres and the remaining lot would be 28.7 acres.  He continued that the frontage for the back lot would be a 50 ft strip on South Hill Road.  He indicated that information regarding perc testing that had been completed was e-mailed to the Board on December 7, 2009.  He pointed to his map and stated that an area had been revised to avoid the need for installing a wetlands crossing.  He added that an existing culvert would be used.  He pointed out that the revision eliminated the need for a Conditional Use Permit as well as a Dredge and Fill Application.  He stated that test pits had been completed on both properties and received confirmation via Chris Danforth, a licensed designer of subsurface systems, that areas existed on each property that were adequate for handling a single family residence.  
Douglas Hill asked if the driveway for the back lot was more than 15% grade.  He added that it appeared that there was a 100 ft. elevation from the road to the future location of the house.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, answered that he had yet to calculate the grade.  Douglas Hill advised that if the driveway was over 15% grade, a plan would need to be provided.  Douglas Hill was unsure if a waiver had been requested relative to the ISWMP; Dennis McKenney, LLS, indicated that a waiver had been requested.  Douglas Hill explained that the ISWMP was typically tied in with the driveway.  He asked what the distance from the road to the 200 ft. square was on the property.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that the distance was at least 1,200 ft.  Douglas Hill calculated that if the driveway was level and the elevation was 100 ft. the slope would be approximately 8%.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, noted that the slope was not steady and even the entire way.   
Don Chapman of Francestown Road pointed to the map to show the location of the existing house and driveway of the abutting lot to the north.  He explained that the existing driveway that would run parallel to the proposed driveway met the current Driveway Regulations.  
Dennis McKenney, LLS, asked the Board if they had specific requests for information that he could address.  Peter Hogan stated that the question was whether or not the driveway could be kept within the 15% grade requirement.  Douglas Hill advised that if the applicant’s driveway had a grade in excess of 10% then they would be required to prepare a driveway plan.  Peter Hogan added that should there be significant earth removal to create the driveway at 10% the applicant should plan on submitting a construction plan to the Board.  Christine Quirk pointed out the applicant was seeking a waiver for the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.  Peter Hogan noted that information regarding this issue could be cleared up following a site walk.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that he brought this up during the preliminary discussion.
The Chairman indicated that he would go through the items that were missing for a completed application.  He noted that the fees were no longer outstanding.  He asked if the applicant had provided a final plat at the scale of the New Boston tax maps.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that once the plan was finalized he could submit the map in question.
Douglas Hill asked the applicant if they were seeking waivers for the sprinkler system as well as the Erosion Sediment and Control Plan for the driveway serving the back lot.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, confirmed the requests.  The Chairman indicated that the waiver for the sprinkler system did not apply.  The Chairman stated that the Board would wait until after the site walk to make a decision on the Erosion Sediment and Control Plan waiver.  
The Chairman indicated for purposes of completing the requirements for the application he requested that the applicant provide the Board with a 1” = 400’ final plat map.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, asked if the Board was requesting a map that illustrated the property boundary at 1” = 400’ or if the entire map should reflect 1” = 400’.  The Coordinator answered that lot lines and road layout needed to be at 1” = 400’.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that he could e-mail a PDF of the requested map the following morning.  
The Chairman noted that the Dredge and Fill permit was missing.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that because he had reconfigured the lot the permit no longer applied.  He explained that the driveway would come up a 50 ft. strip, swing to the south, pick up an existing road, and cross a drainage area at an existing culvert.
Douglas Hill asked if the driveway was marked for the site walk.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that he would prefer that either he or Brian Towne accompany the Board on their site walk.  The Chairman agreed with Dennis McKenney, LLS, but noted that if the driveway should be marked.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, pointed to the map indicating where the driveway was marked.  
The Chairman asked Dennis McKenney, LLS, for his justification for the waiver request of the Erosion Sediment and Control Plan.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, explained that the construction would include obvious erosion control measures, i.e., stable slopes, hay bales.  
Peter Hogan pointed out that a completed application would not be possible until after the site walk when the Board could make a decision on the waiver requests.  
The Chairman noted that waivers for the Traffic, Fiscal and Environmental Impact Studies were submitted.  He asked the applicant to write one letter, following the site walk, of all the waiver requests with their justifications.  
The Chairman asked the applicant if he had addressed all the Plan Review items.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, indicated that the question regarding a possible utility easement had not been resolved to date as he had not had an opportunity to visit the Registry of Deeds.  He advised that he would be traveling to the Registry of Deeds to resolve that question.  
The Chairman asked the applicant for confirmation that they no longer needed a Conditional Use Permit.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, confirmed the Chairman’s statement explaining that by using an existing culvert the need to cross the wetlands had been eliminated.  
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if acceptance of the application could be determined following the site walk.  The Coordinator advised that the acceptance of the completeness needed to be done within 30 days of delivery of the application.  She continued that the application had been delivered on November 18, 2009, and waiting until the next meeting of December 22, 2009, would be past the deadline.  The Chairman asked how similar situations had been handled in the past.  The Coordinator advised that the Board on one occasion had accepted an application as complete with the caveat of changing their position following a site walk.  Peter Hogan stated that the applicant could withdraw their application and resubmit.  The Coordinator also pointed out that the Board could deny the application as incomplete.  The Chairman asked if the application was denied would it be adjourned.  The Coordinator answered that it would not be adjourned and would need to be re-noticed.  
The Chairman noted that the 1” = 400’ final plat map was missing and asked if a condition could be created that the map be submitted by December 9, 2009.  The Coordinator pointed out that the map was part of the Board’s list of requirements for a final completed application.  
The Chairman stated that the missing Dredge and Fill permit was not an issue as the applicant no longer required the permit.  He suggested that with regard to the three missing copies of the Erosion Sediment and Control Plan waiver the Board could deny the waiver and possibly submit at a later time.  The Coordinator pointed out that if the waiver was denied then an Erosion Sediment and Control Plan would need to be submitted for the application to be deemed complete.  The Chairman suggested granting the waiver with the caveat that following a site walk the Board could decide to deny the request.  He continued that Board could also grant waivers for the Environmental, Fiscal, and Traffic Impact Studies and decide to deny the requests following the site walk.  
Douglas Hill asked what the downside to withdrawing the application was.  The Chairman answered that the applications would need to be re-noticed and fees would need to be resubmitted.  Douglas Hill asked what the typical fees were associated with noticing an application.  The Coordinator advised that the fees were $7.00 per abutter.  Douglas Hill asked how many abutters needed to be noticed for this application.  The Coordinator answered that the total fees for noticing this application were $70.00.  
Douglas Hill asked why there was a lag between the preliminary hearing and completed application.  The Coordinator explained that there was 30 day acceptance deadline that needed to be met.  She noted that the Board’s regulations include a list of required items that needed to be completed for a final application to be complete.  
Dennis McKenney, LLS, asked if this meeting was the first meeting since submission of the application on November 18, 2009.  The Coordinator advised that a meeting was held on November 24, 2009, but noted that the applicant had missed the deadline for submitting the application to get on that agenda.
The Chairman asked the Board if anyone was in favor of having the Environmental, Fiscal, and Traffic Impact Studies completed.  Peter Hogan stated that a decision could not be made until after the site walk, citing the need to view the driveway.  Peter Hogan stated the Environmental Impact Study may need to be required should issues arise with the construction of the driveway.  Douglas Hill asked if the as-built would cover potential issues.  Peter Hogan was unsure.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that the terrain for the proposed access for the lot in question was similar to the existing house to the north.  He continued that by looking at the contours that did not appear to be a situation in which a cut of 50 ft. would be necessary.  He added that the lot was a typical New Boston lot and he believed that it would be relatively easy to build a safe driveway.  
The Chairman stated that the Board had three choices: (1) deny the application; (2) applicant withdraws application; or (3) accept the application and waive the items that are missing.  
Peter Hogan stated that he believed that the subdivision was most likely fine, pointing out that the two lots were very large.  He continued that the issue before the Board was deciding whether or not the application was complete.  He noted that this application was not complete.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that with respect to the 1” = 400’ map he asked the Board to apply some common sense.  He continued to explain that the Board would not be gaining any new information from the map; it was the same information at a different size.
The Chairman asked the Board for their position on the acceptance of the application.  Mark Suennen stated that he believed the application was incomplete, explaining that decisions based on environmental issues could not be made without knowing what the land looked like.  Peter Hogan agreed with Mark Suennen.  Christine Quirk stated that she would vote to deny the application.  
The Chairman indicated that a motion needed to be made to deny the application as incomplete.  Peter Hogan advised the applicant that they could choose to withdraw their application.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, asked the Board, should the application be denied as incomplete, would the process of resubmitting and noticing postpone the site walk until after January 1, 2010.  The Chairman stated that the site walk could be scheduled and moved forward.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, stated that other towns would typically approve the application as substantially complete pending a site walk.
Peter Hogan asked where the deadline originated.  The Coordinator responded that the statute clearly states that the Planning Board has to accept an application as complete within 30 days.  She continued that Board had a list of requirements in the regulations that need to be fulfilled for an application to be considered complete.  Douglas Hill commented that he believed this would become a recurring problem.  The Coordinator suggested that the Subdivision Regulations be reviewed.  Douglas Hill asked if the Board could decide to follow the old practice of allowing the application to remain incomplete until the requirements were met.  The Coordinator noted that should an abutter appeal the application a court would rule that the Planning Board did not follow the correct procedure.  Douglas Hill commented that he believed 30 days from the first meeting would be a reasonable amount of time for the requirements to be completed.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, asked if the interpretation of the statute was that the application was delivered to the town hall or to the Board.  The Coordinator stated that the list of requirements could be amended by changing the Subdivision Regulations.  Douglas Hill commented that he did not believe the applicant should be penalized through no fault of their own.  Christine Quirk inquired as to the presence of abutters; there were no abutters.  Mark Suennen stated that he did not believe that the applicants were being penalized through no fault of their own.  He explained that the applicants had gone through an informational session and had access to all of the requirements in the checklist.
Peter Hogan suggested that the applicant withdraw their application with the intent of resubmitting in the near future and the Board could adjourn to a date certain to avoid re-noticing.  The Coordinator noted that there were no rules on withdrawing.  Mark Suennen added that if the applicant withdrew their application and asked the Board to consider this meeting as their informational session the issue of notifying would remain.  Peter Hogan asked if abutters had been notified.  The Coordinator answered yes.  Douglas Hill asked if a date certain could be scheduled for the next meeting and allow the applicant to not re-notify.  The Coordinator replied the applicant would need to re-notice at the final hearing because it would be a different application.  She suggested that the Board approve the application as complete and grant the waivers with the caveat that following a site walk the items waived may be required as long as the applicant was agreeable to the terms.  Dennis McKenney, LLS, indicated that the applicant would agree to the acceptance of the application as complete with the caveat that the Board could deny the waiver request following a site walk.   The Coordinator pointed out that a driveway to the back lot could create a situation where an ISWMP would be required because the land could potentially be disturbed within 20 ft. of the side lot line.  Douglas Hill and Peter Hogan commented that they would be in favor of granting the waiver for the ISWMP and requiring the applicant to produce an ISWMP if it is later determined that one is needed.  

Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waivers requested, (the scale of the New Boston Tax Maps, Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, and the Environmental, Fiscal, and Traffic Impact Studies), with the understanding that things could change after the site walk with respect to the land contour and sediment and erosion plans.  Douglas Hill seconded the motion.  Douglas Hill, Christine Quirk and Peter Hogan – AYE.  Mark Suennen – NAY.  The motion PASSED.  

Peter Hogan MOVED to approve the application as complete, maintaining the record of the previous discussion as to its completeness.  Douglas Hill seconded the motion.  Douglas Hill, Christine Quirk and Peter Hogan – AYE.  Mark Suennen – NAY.  The motion PASSED.  

The Chairman stated that the application was accepted as complete and the deadline for the Board’s action was February 11, 2010.  A site walk was scheduled for Saturday, December 19, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.  The Chairman reminded the applicant to check the Town’s regulations for a list of items that needed to be marked.  

Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the application to January 12, 2010, at 7:30 p.m.  
Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.   

The Board recessed for 5 minutes.

Public Input Session, re:  Proposed Zoning Amendments for 2010.

        The Chairman stated that prior to the Zoning amendment discussion he would allow John and Heidi Palmer to address the Board regarding mixed use zoning in the Village.  John Palmer stated that properties in the Village District were zoned Commercial.  He continued that small non-conforming lots become stigmatized because they can only be commercial lots.  He added that a lot owner was not allowed to use a unit as both a residence and business.  Heidi Palmer stated that some property owners in town would have liked to operate a bed and breakfast but could not because of current zoning.  It was Heidi Palmer’s opinion that creating a mixed use district in the Village would enhance the town.  Douglas Hill commented that he did not believe the Board disagreed with the Palmers but noted that this type of change needed to progress through the correct process.  John Palmer stated that he would like to appear before the Board again to begin the process.  Christine Quirk suggested that a committee be formed to further research applying a mixed use district in the Village.  
The Chairman noted that creating a mixed use district in the Village would be added to the Board’s 2010 list of things to address.  He continued that John and Heidi Palmer would be contacted when a committee was being formed for their participation.  
The Chairman continued the discussion of proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments.  He pointed out that the amendments that were being reviewed had previously been discussed at the last meeting.          The Board decided to move forward with the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 404.2, that would add the following paragraph. “In the event that an existing dwelling unit on a lot meets the requirements and limitations of an accessory dwelling unit, a second dwelling of any size, meeting all other zoning and building code requirements, may be built on the same lot to be considered thereafter the principal dwelling.”  
The Board agreed to move forward with the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance under Section 404.3, that would replace the term “living space” with the term
“conditioned space”, the section would read as follows:  “An accessory dwelling unit shall have living conditioned space of no less than 300 square feet and not greater than 1,000 square feet.”
The Coordinator noted that the proposed Zoning amendment to Section 307 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to yards on corner lots.  The amendment would delete the existing section and replace with the following language, “A corner lot shall be required to have one front yard for the purpose of these regulation.”  She noted that the amendment did not provide language for designation of the location of the driveway.  Douglas Hill suggested that the driveway be located on the side of the lot that was used for the frontage.  Christine Quirk agreed with Douglas Hill’s statement.  Douglas Hill asked if a driveway could be created on the short setback side.  The Chairman answered no.  The Chairman decided to suspend the discussion of this matter and revisit after the remaining amendments had been addressed.
The Board agreed to move forward with the proposed amendment to Section 314 of the Zoning Ordinance relative to Off-Street Parking.  The amendment would be as follows, “…All parking areas shall be prohibited within the entire required minimum front yard area and within the first 50% of the required minimum side and rear yard areas for any district, with the exception of one or two-family dwellings that do not have any non-residential uses occurring therein...”
The Board agreed to move forward with the proposed amendment to Section 404.3 of the Zoning Ordinance that addressed requirements and limitations to Accessory Dwelling Units.  The amendment would read as follows:  “Accessory dwelling units are permitted in the Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District except in Open Space Developments.”
The Board agreed to move forward with the proposed amendment to Section 403 of the Zoning Ordinance that would extend the time period for a Personal Wireless Service Facility to be operational from 9 months to 12 months.   
The Board agreed to move forward with proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance under Section 602 that would amend the definition of Building to read as follows:  “A constructed unit having a roof and forming a shelter for persons, animals or property and having a roof and being permanently located on the ground.  Where the context allows, the word ‘building’ shall be construed as followed by the words ‘of part thereof’.”  The amendment would also change the definition of Structure to read as follows:  “Anything constructed or erected with a fixed which requires a location on the ground, or attached an attachment to something having a fixed location on the ground.  Structure includes, but is not limited to a building, swimming pool and associated barrier/fence, manufactured home, billboard, or poster panel.  It shall not include a minor installation such as a fence six feet or less in height, mail box, flagpole or accessory building of 100 square feet or less.  (Amended March 13, 2001 and March 13, 2007).”
The Board agreed to move forward with the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 204.6, C, 4, c, 1, that addressed the Wetlands and Stream Corridor Conservation District by adding the following language: “…the removal of trees of limbs that present an imminent threat to safety or property.”
The Board also agreed to move forward with the proposed amendment that addressed changes in Section 204.1 of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to Industrial as follows:
  • Replace Permitted Use #3 “Newspaper and Prinitng” with two separate uses:  “#3 Newspaper” and “#4 Printing/Copying”, and renumber the remaining Permitted Uses in the Table.
  • Replace Special Exception Use #1 “Vehicular Sales and Repair Facility” with two separate uses:  “#1 Vehicular Sales Facility” and “#2 Vehicular Repair Facility”, and renumber the remaining Special Exception Uses in the Table.
  • Replace Special Exception Use #5 “Research and/or testing laboratory” with “Research & Development Facility”.
The Board agreed to move forward with the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to
Section 204.2, pertaining to the Commercial District.  The amendment would change the title of the district from “ ‘COM’ Commercial” to “Small Scale Planned Commercial District”.
The Board agreed to move forward the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section 204.3, “R-1”  Residential –One, that would add a Permitted Use #6 that would read as follows:  “Open Space Development in accordance with the provisions of Article IV.”  
The Board agreed to move forward with the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section 204.4, “R-A” Residential-Agricultural, to read as follows:  “Types of factors limiting development are remoteness from the town center, some land having slopes of over 15%, poor town roads often difficult to travel on during the spring, and large areas not suitable for on-site sewage disposal.”  As well as changing Permitted Use #6, “Cluster Residential Development…” to “Open Space Development…”  
        The Board agreed to move forward with the proposed amendment relative to Section 309 of the Zoning Ordinance that addressed location of driveways.  The amendment would replace
the word “Selectmen” in the last sentence with the words, “Road Agent and/or Planning Board”, so that the sentence would read follows:  “Driveway Permits shall be obtained form the Selectmen Road Agent and/or Planning Board for town roads, and from the N.H. Department of Transportation for state roads.”
The Board agreed to move the proposed amendment forward relative to Section 602 of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to Definitions.  The changes are as follows:  “The words “agriculture” and “farming” shall mean those items all operations of a farm as listed in RSA 21:34-a, as amended, and shall also include the practice of veterinary medicine.  (Amended March 13, 2001.)
The Board agreed to move the proposed changes to Section 204.7, Groundwater Resource Conservation District, of the Zoning Ordinance.  The Chairman noted that the changes encompassed a Conditional Use Permit process and changing definitions.  
The Chairman noted that there were two additional proposed amendments to the Building Code.  The first amendment referred to Section NH-1.5.1, and would read as follows:  “The Town, by this Ordinance, shall adopt the International Residential Code, 2000, as published by the International Code Council, and as amended New Hampshire Building Code, as defined in RSA 155-A:1,IV.  In addition, amendments to the referenced codes adopted by the State building code review board shall apply.  (Section added March 9, 2009)  
The Chairman indicated that the second amendment to the Building Code pertained to Section NB-2.0 relative to Plans and would read as follows:  “…Plans shall show a plot plan drawn to scale showing the location of easements, drainage facilities, adjacent grades, property lines, wetlands, the proposed building and of every existing building on the property.”  
The Board agreed to move both Building Code amendments forward.
The Chairman returned the Board’s attention to the suspended discussion regarding Section 307, Yards on Corner Lots, Zoning Ordinance.  The Chairman asked if the frontage needed to be the location of the driveway or not.  Douglas Hill believed that whatever side the applicant chose for the driveway they would make the frontage.  The Coordinator asked who would be responsible for determining the 50’ setback.  Douglas Hill answered that the applicant would make the decision as to the placement of the setback.  The Coordinator added that it was her experience that some towns allow for the applicant to choose the setback and some towns rely on the Planning Board to make the decision regarding the setback.  Douglas Hill noted that new parking regulations could affect the setbacks.  The Coordinator indicated that the current Ordinance allowed for parking in 50% of the setback.  She clarified that the proposed Ordinance amendment would prohibit parking in the front setback but still allow for parking in 50% of the setbacks to the side and rear.  Mark Suennen offered an example using the corner of Wilson Hill and Bedford Roads.  He questioned that if the Wilson Hill Road side was not 200’ but the Bedford Road side was and the owner wanted to place the driveway on Wilson Hill for the convenience of accessing the driveway, would the Planning Board prevent such an option.  
It was the Chairman’s opinion that the Board should be responsible for choosing the location of the driveway.  Douglas Hill stated that the Board should only be responsible for indicating whether or not something meets regulations and not responsible for choosing the location of the driveway.  Christine Quirk noted that the Board could recommend changes to the applicant.  The Chairman noted that the Board was tasked with maintaining safety on projects.  He suggested adding the language, “The Planning Board makes the determination of where the driveway is.”  Mark Suennen asked if this would apply to subdivisions, lots of record, or all driveway permits.  
The Coordinator advised that the Town of Goffstown used the language, “where a lot is a corner lot or otherwise has multiple street frontages, the front dimensions shall be observed adjacent to one of the frontages.”  Douglas Hill suggested using the language that the Coordinator offered and not define where the location of the driveway would be.  Mark Suennen suggested adding language that prohibited someone creating a road from stealing property from the abutter without compensation.  Douglas Hill commented that when a lot had two frontages one should be required to have setback frontage not both.  
The Board decided to go ahead with the language suggested by the Committee: “A corner lot shall be required to have one front yard for the purpose of these regulations.”
The Chairman stated that Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, wanted to add the following language to Section 204.6,C,4,c,1 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:  “The landowner/applicant may be required to restore the natural woodland or vegetative buffer if it is determined by the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer that said buffer has not been maintained as noted above.  All costs associated with the restoration of the vegetative buffer shall be borne by the landowner/applicant.”  The Board decided not to move forward with this proposed amendment.  The Chairman made note that this amendment could be resubmitted next year.  

MISCELLANOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 2009
        
1.      Approval of minutes of November 13, 2009, distributed by email.

        The Chairman noted that the minutes had recently been distributed and not reviewed.  He stated that a   vote to approve the minutes would be taken at the next meeting.

2.      Permit to use driveway for Kevin D’Amelio, Jr., Byam Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/41-2, for the Planning Board Chairman’s signature.  
        
        The Chairman indicated that he would sign the above-referenced matter at the closing of
        the meeting.

5.      Discussion, re:  Wetland Crossing/Box Culvert, Carol S & Albert J. LaChance, Tax Map/Lot #2/112-2-3, 2/112-2-4 and 2/112-2-5, NH Route 77, a/k/a Weare Road, release of security being held to confirm vegetation is stabilized regarding Map/Lot .
        (DRIVE BY PRIOR TO MEETING)

The Coordinator explained that when the wetland crossing/box culvert security was
        returned the Planning Board withheld $500.00 to verify stabilization in May of 2009.  She noted
        at the recent compliance hearing it was discovered that the $500.00 had not been returned.  The
        Chairman stated he had visited the site and observed grass growth.
        Douglas Hill MOVED to release the security being held to confirm vegetation is stabilized, regarding Tax/Map Lot #2/112-2-3, 2/112-2-4 and 2/112-2-5.  Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

  • Letter dated November 23, 2009, from Jim Bath, Manager, Shaky Pond, LLC, to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Shaky Pond Development, LLC, Tax/Map Lot #15/15, Susan Road, request for subdivision approval extension from January 16, 2010, to July 16, 2011, for the Board’s action.
        The Chairman stated that the applicant in the above-referenced matter was seeking an 18 month extension.  The Coordinator explained that the conditions precedent deadline was January13, 2010 and the conditions subsequent deadline was January 13, 2011.  She advised against creating the same deadline for the conditions precedent and subsequent.  She suggested extending the conditions precedent for one year.  The Chairman suggested extending the conditions precedent for 18 months and the conditions subsequent for a year beyond that.

Douglas Hill MOVED to extend the conditions precedent deadline for Shaky Pond Development, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #15/15, Susan Road, to July 13, 2011 and extend the conditions subsequent deadline to July 13, 2012; these dates also to apply to the Conditional Use Permit.  Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.

7.      Email received December 3, 2009, from Derek M. Horne, Zoning Code Enforcement Officer, Town of Goffstown, to Mr. Preece & Mrs. Strong, re: Development of Regional Impact – Woodland Village, for the Board’s information.

The Coordinator noted that she received the information in the above-referenced matter
        and she would be able share the information for those interested.  

8.      Letter dated December 4, 2009, to Ed Hunter, Building Inspector and Planning Board, from Cheri Cywenski, re: shed placement in Wetland Setback, for the Board’s review and discussion.

The Coordinator stated that the letter was not clear but the shed in question was going to
        placed on blocks, therefore, not a foundation structure.  She explained that the shed would be in
        the 50’ wetland setback.  She noted that the Zoning Ordinance gave discretion to the Planning
        Board to allow for a non-foundation structure in the setback.  
Peter Hogan asked if any clearing would be done.  The Coordinator answered that the
        letter did not state whether or not clearing would be completed.  Peter Hogan stated that the
        Board needed to know if clearing would take place prior to making a decision.  
The Board decided that they would like to have a presentation on this matter at the next meeting.

3.      Request dated November 13, 2009, from Douglas Wilkins, Anderson & Kreiger, LLP, to Mr. Stuart Lewin, Chair, Planning Board, re: clarification regarding conditions subsequent, Old Coach Road, Tax/Map Lot #8/132, for the Board’s action.

4.      Request dated November 13, 2009, from Douglas Wilkins, Anderson & Kreiger, LLP, to Mr. Stuart Lewin, Chair, Planning Board, re: clarification regarding conditions subsequent, Wilson Hill Road, Tax/Map Lot #6/33, for the Board’s action.
        
The Chairman indicated that he would address the item 3 and 4 together as they were
        related.  

The Coordinator stated that the applicant in the above-referenced matter asked for
clarification regarding the deadline date for having cell towers operational.  She explained that
at the last Planning Board meeting the Board believed that they had extended the deadline.  She
pointed out at the Board did not extend the deadline but instead shortened the deadline.  She
stated that there is no difference in the Zoning Ordinance between the timing of operation and
conditions subsequent, adding that the date already granted could not be changed without a
hearing.  She advised that the Board could acknowledge their mistake and leave the deadline of
December 8, 2011, as is or hold a hearing to change the date at the Town's cost for the notices.
The Board decided to leave the operational and conditions subsequent deadline date as December 8, 2011.  The Chairman stated that he did not agree with the Board.

Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn at 9:21 p.m.  Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.


Respectfully Submitted,                                         
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk                                   

Minutes Approved: 01/12/2010